Journal des débats 1987-déc-21 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Philip: It seems ironic, if not hypocritical, that while the Premier (Mr. Peterson) was attacking free trade in Ottawa last Thursday, his Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton) was introducing free trade legislation at Queen’s Park.

In so doing, the minister stated that most Canadian jurisdictions were already well into similar so-called reforms. It is astonishing that the Minister of Transportation should be so poorly informed. The facts are that British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland have not introduced this kind of legislation, nor are there any indications they intend to do so at the present time.

Simon Reisman has admitted his failure in the free trade negotiations to obtain easier access to American markets for Canadian trucking companies. It is next to impossible for an Ontario carrier legally to pick up and deliver to 43 US states. In contrast, the Liberal government’s legislation will give American carriers easy access to the Ontario markets.

According to the Ontario Trucking Association, this legislation could result in the loss of 10,000 jobs to Ontario residents. It is sad that the government has caved in to the lobbying of the Canadian and American manufacturers’ associations and has so little concern about the profitability of trucking companies in this province and the jobs of their employees.

Mr. McCague: All members know we are here today because of the government’s introduction of a resolution condemning the free trade agreement. All members know that in introducing the resolution, the government broke parliamentary tradition, for the resolution was never discussed by the House leaders. All members know that the resolution does not make sense, for it prejudices the work of the standing committee on finance and economic affairs, which is going to be looking at this agreement.

By taking this ill-founded and poorly-thought-out step, Mr. Speaker, the government has disrupted the holiday plans of not just the members of this assembly but also you and all the people who work here at Queen’s Park.

As members know, the pages are students from either grade 7 or grade 8. While this is an exciting opportunity for them, the pages do not see their families and friends for an extended period of time as they serve in the Legislature. They were told last Thursday would be the end of this session. The government effectively ended those plans. Instead of spending this week with their families and friends, the government is forcing them to alter their holiday plans to suit the government’s own shortsighted and ill-considered agenda.

As members, we are given prompt and courteous service by the pages and they deserve better. The government’s action is mean-spirited.

BEN JOHNSON

Miss Nicholas: It is with great pleasure that I rise today to honour one of the most outstanding and renowned athletes from the city of Scarborough, Ben Johnson.

Last week, Ben Johnson had a triple win: the Lou Marsh trophy for Canada’s outstanding athlete of the year; the top international sports personality of the year; and for the second time, the Lionel Conacher award as outstanding male athlete of the year.

Since 1985, Ben has established himself as the world’s top sprinter. In August of this year, while those of us in this House were running around the streets of Ontario in the election campaign, Mr. Johnson was running in Rome at the world track and field championships where he set an all-time record in the 100-metre sprint.

Mr. Johnson offers an outstanding example to all people of Ontario, both young and old, of health and physical fitness as well as personal achievement. He set high goals for himself and he realized them. That is something we could all learn from. I hope he is an inspiration to young people to strive to do their best in all things.

I wish to honour him and his family today and to wish them all the best. I hope all the members of this House will join me in congratulating him. Although it is presumptuous of me to say, it is my fond hope that he will bring home to Canada and to Scarborough a gold medal from the 1988 Summer Olympics in Seoul, South Korea.

LEARNING DISABLED

Mr. Allen: I want to call the attention of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) to a serious case of unequal justice dealt by two of his ministries.

Jordan Goldstein and Robbie Thompson are gifted boys with severe multiple learning disabilities. Their school boards had difficulty placing them. Supported in private placements by vocational rehabilitation services funding, they went through the review of late 1985 and secured a one-year extension. Both families appealed for a further extension; one got it, the other did not.

The different treatment appears to lie not in any notable difference in their circumstances but in the routes they took through government. In both cases, the Ministry of Education said they had to find an appropriate program in their local board. In both cases, the boards declared they did not have an appropriate placement.

Here the routes diverge. The chief psychologist of the Goldsteins’ North York board declared the board’s options unsuitable and referred the case to RPAC, the problem-solving group in the Ministry of Community and Social Services, which ultimately decided in the Goldsteins’ favour.

For the Thompsons, however, the East York board itself declared it had no suitable placement and could find none in Ontario, so it asked Education to fund a placement at the Gow School in New York. The Ministry of Education, however, has hung the case up on technicalities for months and the family is having to resort to the courts. When approached through Comsoc, Education told Comsoc to back off.

Will the Premier not balance the scales of justice by intervening on Robbie Thompson’s behalf, or is he satisfied with the unequal justice the two ministries have dealt?

1340

FAMILY VALUES

Mr. Harris: The Christmas season is a special time of year for every family in Ontario, so it is fitting that I rise today to comment on this Liberal government’s attitude towards family values, a matter of genuine concern to people today. The fact that everyone associated with this assembly had to change his or her family Christmas plans because of sheer Liberal arrogance underlines this attitude.

Selling beer and wine in corner stores was a higher priority for this government than dealing with alcohol-related health and social problems in this province. Wide-open shopping that forces businesses to open and employees to work is more important to this government than providing the necessary leadership to permit families to be together on a very special Sunday after Christmas.

The statements by the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) that murderers in this province spend too much time in jail shows contempt for law and order, as do the efforts of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) to expand abortion services throughout Ontario with no debate in this Legislature, input from the people or promotion of alternatives. This Liberal government places more money, resources and emphasis into increasing access to abortion on demand than it does on the alternatives to abortion: counselling, education, responsibility, adoption. This Liberal government flouts the federal law on abortion and refuses to recognize, in even any small way, the rights of the unborn.

This Liberal government sits idly by while witches and warlocks gain official religious-institution status while they erode the principle of the Sabbath.

This Liberal government gives a very low priority to family values and law and order --

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

Mr. Harris: --and it is becoming a concern --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

PENETANGUISHENE MENTAL HEALTH CENTRE

Mr. Reville: If ever there was a government facility that deserved to be torn down, Oak Ridge surely is it. However, to give itself more time to dither, the government has decided to renovate parts of it instead. Lo and behold, on October 15 it managed to open a new ward. The problem is, no patients went into the ward. Why is that? Because the ministry has not gotten around to allocating any staff for that ward. What we have is a ward that has been open for two months now with nobody on it.

The chairman of the community advisory board has written to the ministry on four occasions since last April, begging that supplementary staffing allocations be approved, but without any response. The chairman says: “The present Oak Ridge facility is not just antiquated, it is offensive. If proper support is given, we can make it serviceable for a short period while a new hospital is built.”

Proper support is not being given. It does not appear that the ministry has a timetable for its replacement. What is the ministry doing, anyway?

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

INTERNATIONAL SALE OF GOODS

Hon. Mr. Scott: Some of Canada’s major trading partners, notably the United States, China, Italy and France, have joined the United Nations convention on the international sale of goods. The government of Canada has also indicated its interest in joining the convention.

The convention, which is also known as the Vienna sales convention, harmonizes the law which applies to contracts for the sale of goods from a supplier in one country to a buyer in another. It was developed by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law and was approved by a conference of more than 60 countries, including Canada.

Before formally acceding to the agreement, the federal government is seeking significant provincial participation in the form of supporting legislation. I am happy to announce that the government of Ontario is pleased to participate in this convention. It has many advantages for exporters and importers in this province. In addition to the facilitation of international contracts, participation in the convention by Ontario is viewed by this government as an important step in promoting Ontario’s presence in the international trading forum.

I will today, therefore, be introducing for first reading the International Sale of Goods Act. This act will implement the convention in Ontario. It will take effect when the convention becomes effective at the federal level, possibly in 1989.

Importers and exporters play an important role in the provincial economy. Last year, for example, more than $72 billion worth of goods was imported into Ontario and $62.6 billion worth was exported to our trading partners. Thousands of contracts covered these transactions.

At present, every country has its own laws for the sale of goods. Some of our trading partners have laws that are quite familiar to our business people -- those of the United Kingdom, for example, which are very similar to ours, or the United States, which do not differ greatly -- but others vary considerably, and in the eastern bloc or Islamic countries these differences can be very striking.

The convention provides a compromise which is acceptable to most legal systems and to countries in every stage of economic development. The rules, I believe, are sensible and fair and they do not depart dramatically from the rules relied upon by our business community. Both the Canadian Manufacturers’ Association and the Canadian Bar Association support the implementation of the convention in Ontario. I should add, however, that notwithstanding the convention, parties to a transaction may agree to choose some other system of law to govern their contract.

This government plans to approach various interested business groups to participate and assist in an educational program for Ontario business people. The process will help them become familiar with and employ the terms of the new law. In passing this legislation, Ontario can do its part in harmonizing the law that governs contracts for international trade.

FOREST PRODUCTS INDUSTRIES

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Today I would like to table a report entitled Study of Ontario Forest Products Industries, prepared for my ministry by independent consultants Woodbridge, Reed and Associates. This study provides an analysis of the wood products industries in terms of global competitiveness and new opportunities presented by markets, technologies and resources. We commissioned this study because of the importance of these industries to Ontario and particularly to many of our northern communities.

My ministry identified the need for such a study early last year. At that time Dr. Gordon Baskerville was in the midst of his comprehensive review of the overall management of the crown forests of Ontario. His report confirmed our view that an analysis of the forest products industries was necessary. The study became part of the ministry’s 16-point action program to revitalize forest management in Ontario. This study gives us an independent and up-to-date appraisal of the current status of these industries and their potential for future growth and expansion.

The general prognosis for the forest products industry is positive. The consultants found that “Ontario has the basic resource strength to become a larger force in forest products, particularly pulp and paper, and is well positioned to achieve overall growth as well as capitalize on the trend to higher valued products.” However, the report identifies some important challenges for both industry and government. It recommends a more proactive role for government in encouraging new investment and in identifying and encouraging new investment and marketing wood surpluses. The issue of accurate wood supply information is already being examined under the Baskerville action plan.

The report also recommends action by industry in the areas of modernization of ageing facilities, better use of new technologies, more aggressive marketing and the introduction of innovative product lines. My ministry staff is consulting with industry representatives on how we can best meet the challenges facing us. My deputy minister is working with an interministerial committee to co-ordinate the government review and focus on issues which require a team response. We will also be asking the Premier’s Council and the northern development councils for their input.

Based on these consultations, my ministry will develop an action plan which I expect to present to the House in the first part of the new year, while we are still here. This report says that both industry and government need to move faster and more aggressively to capitalize on new opportunities. I am sure we all agree that where we find or can create an opening for our products and our skills, we should go after it. But we must identify priorities and directions for our economic initiatives. We need a comprehensive and co-ordinated approach. That is what we intend to improve.

RESPONSES

FOREST PRODUCTS INDUSTRIES

Mr. Laughren: It is truly scary to think that if we were not sitting today we would not have heard this statement from the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio). When the minister got to his feet, when I saw the document, I thought, “My goodness, another study on Ontario’s forests. Imagine that.” If we were to pile up all of the studies that have been done on Ontario’s forests, it would explain why there may be a shortage of wood in the future in this province.

1350

While the studies go way back, decades, do you know what has never been done, Mr. Speaker? Studies have been done on everything from wood allocation to competitiveness, but neither the government before this nor this government has ever had the courage to do an audit of Ontario’s forests.

This study recommends, according to the minister’s remarks, that there needs to be more money put into the industry to modernize. It was less than 10 years ago that $100 million of taxpayers’ money supported the forest industry in this province -- federal and provincial tax dollars; all taxpayers’ dollars to support the industry that would not modernize itself.

Here we have the minister saying we need to have more high-valued products from our forest products. I agree with that; of course we need more high-valued products. But the minister does not seem to understand yet that unless we get a handle on how much wood is out there, what the species are, whether they are the economically viable species that are going to be needed in the next 20 years, then all of these studies will be for naught.

I have often asked the minister why he would not appoint a permanent forestry auditor for Ontario. A couple of years ago the minister appointed Professor Baskerville. He did an audit, but he did an audit of Ministry of Natural Resources files. He did not do an audit of the forests at all. He admits that. He said, “You couldn’t ask me to do an audit in six months,” and that is what the minister asked him to do. He said, “I can’t do it in the bush, so I will have to do it in the MNR files.” So he spent six months going through the filing cabinet of the Minister of Natural Resources. That is what he did.

The minister responded by saying, “We are going to have a 16-point plan.” I would like to have an update from the minister, point by point, of all those 16 points he said he was going to bring forward within the next year; I think he said by the end of 1987. To this point, we have not seen that.

Now the minister says: “Don’t you be worried. In the new year, we are going to have an action plan.” What terrifies me is that in early 1988 the action plan is going to be -- are you ready for this, Mr. Speaker? -- another study. Mark my words. In 1988 the Minister of Natural Resources will commission another study on Ontario’s forests. But do members know what it will not do? It will not audit Ontario’s forests.

To this day, the minister has no idea of what is out there in Ontario’s forests, species by species. I understood why the previous government, when the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) was the minister, would never do an audit. I understood why he would never do an audit: because he would have had to answer for the results of that audit. This government does not have to answer for the result of an audit of Ontario’s forests. It is not the one which screwed it up; it was the Progressive Conservative Party.

I ask why this government will not do a permanent forestry audit, establish an office of the Provincial Auditor, as there is for the rest of the government, and do one for Ontario’s forests. There is a great deal at stake.

The minister, for some reason that no one I have ever talked to can understand, will not do a permanent forestry audit. There really is no reason whatsoever --

Hon. Mr. Scott: There may be an idea there we can pick up.

Mr. Laughren: No, I do not think the government will do it. Here we have the minister now setting the stage for more taxpayers’ money to go into the forestry industry. That is really what is behind this report, and the minister should at least have the courage to admit that.

Mr. Pollock: Needless to say, I have not had a chance to go through this report and study it, but once I have that chance I will perhaps be able to report more fully.

But I want to put a few things on the record. I know that in certain areas where there is rough terrain there are a lot of local people who believe there should not be clear-cutting, there should be selective cutting in those areas. In other areas where the forest is more level, then they can go for clear-cutting. I take it that in the minister’s report, though, he mentions that he wants to have access to markets. Does that mean he is now coming around and is in favour of free trade? That is how it appears, anyway.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Hastings-Peterborough has the floor.

Mr. Pollock: I would like to pay tribute to those people in the Bancroft area who were responsible for helping get the D&E Wood Products in that particular area. That will be a boon to that area, and let us hope that more attention is paid to that particular area so there will be wood products there to supply that particular plant.

Mr. Pope: I have just a couple of words with respect to the study of the Minister of Natural Resources. I wanted to congratulate him for tabling yet another report of the obvious -- the obvious being that we face competitive and technological challenges in the forest products industry today and in the coming years.

Previous governments involved themselves at the federal and provincial levels in the modernization of the sawmills. I know the minister himself has had some discussion and some concern about thermomechanical pulp processes in this province. The fact of the matter is that in 1985 there was a program for the modernization of sawmills which would have aided in precisely some of the same goals and issues that he set forth in this study. He has not acted on the modernization of sawmills program, and that is to the detriment of many communities and many industries in northern Ontario.

Yes, we do face technological challenges. It is not only with respect to machinery but also with respect to genetic manipulation of forest products; in the southern United States, the growth cycle down there as compared to the growth cycle here; closeness to market there as compared to closeness to market here. All of these challenges exist. They are going to get even more serious.

Not only that, but the fundamental challenge to our forest products industry is countervail, quotas and congressional trade bills in the United States. That is the fundamental concern for the people of the forest products industry, for the employees, for the people who live in the resource-based communities of northern Ontario.

This government has said one thing publicly and another thing privately. It has sat on the sidelines. It has not moved to protect the interests, to open up the American market for the forest products industry, and it deserves to be condemned for its inaction: its inaction in opening up the American market and in making sure we do not have countervail duty in the future; its inaction in making sure that we do not have quotas or congressional trade bills in the future.

The government deserves to be condemned for its inaction in the face of all of these competitive challenges, and yet it tables another report on technology in the industry and does nothing to confront the essential challenge for our forest products industry in this province, not only today but for decades to come -- nothing at all. It has done nothing.

INTERNATIONAL SALE OF GOODS

Mr. Pope: I have to say to the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) in reference to his statement that I welcome the fact that, at least in the face of the indication by the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) that trade is one area where the government has to move, and in the face of the study by the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon), which shows that free trade will help the people of Ontario, we have some small movement by the Liberal government of this province to implement true international free trade.

Mr. Sterling: I want to comment briefly on the Attorney General’s remarks here, and I want to say I am not certain, after the mess this government has got Ontario and provincial powers into with regard to trade and commerce under our Constitution, that this act is going to be necessary for the province to pass at all. At least, when I read the Attorney General’s remarks to the Canadian Bar Association and listen to other experts on the matter, it seems that the Attorney General and this government have sold the provincial powers with regard to these matters down the drain.

1400

ESTHER SHINER

Mr. Cousens: I understand there is unanimous consent from all parties for a statement on the late Esther Shiner.

Yesterday, we all received a great shock in learning of her passing. This is a lady who not only distinguished herself as a mother, parent and good citizen of the community, but also, in her efforts as councillor and deputy mayor of North York, became known as one who was a fighter for everybody. I am sure that many Tories wish she had won the battle for the Spadina Expressway, and there are many others in Toronto who would have liked to have seen that go ahead. She believed in it and she fought hard.

She fought hard when she saw the streetcars needing a skirt to protect people and so she went out and made something happen. She fought hard when drivers’ licences needed some sort of photo identification and she won that battle. She fought to get the Reduce Impaired Driving Everywhere program introduced into North York and she won that battle. The battle she lost yesterday was the battle with cancer.

Indeed, I think as we look around and we hope for a better world, the more we can continue the fight for things the way she did to make it a better community for everybody. The one who was known as Esther did not want to have a lot of special laurels and accolades. She was doing what she did in her community and for everybody because she loved it. She is an example to all politicians and to all of us in public service.

On behalf of our party, I would like to extend our sympathy to her husband, Sol; her sons, Jerry, David and Mark; her daughter, Barbara, and all her grandchildren.

May we remember her for her great contribution. She is an example to all of us of what it is to be truly a servant of all the people.

Mr. Polsinelli: I would like to extend the sympathies and the condolences of the Liberal Party to the family of Esther Shiner.

As a former colleague of Esther, I had the pleasure of meeting her in 1982 when I was first elected to the North York council. She struck me as the type of politician, as the member for Markham (Mr. Cousens) indicated, from whom we can all learn. She always had an eminently reasonable position on the issues and she always put forward that position with conviction, with fervour and with warmth, something that is not commonly found in a lot of politicians today.

She was able to sit down with people, with her peers, and explain the issues and bring them down to a human level, to a level that we could all understand. She always put forward the interest of the people in North York, the people she represented, before any other interest.

While Esther may be publicly recognized for her very strong fight to complete the Spadina Expressway, it should also be noted that around this time of year, Esther would probably have been found in Yorkdale Mall or some of the other malls in North York directly raising funds for many worthwhile charitable institutions. She was active with the North York Red Cross. She was active with blood donor clinics. She was active with women’s shelters. She fought against drinking and driving.

Esther had many attributes but her greatest attribute was a very positive and gentle tenacity and she put forward the interest of her constituents, the interest of the people, before every other interest. I think it is only fitting that her family has asked that donations in lieu of flowers be sent to the Esther Shiner Memorial Fund. Knowing Esther’s character and personality, I am sure she would have wanted it that way.

Mr. B. Rae: I know all the members in the House who knew Esther Shiner share with me a sense of personal loss. I certainly want to send to Esther’s family our very deepest feelings at this time.

I first met Esther after I went into provincial politics. She phoned me up and said she wanted to come talk about the Spadina Expressway. I had never met her before. I had heard her on the radio early in the morning, as I am sure many other members have. I welcomed her into my office and she said, “Why are you against the Spadina Expressway?” I told her why, and she said, “I think you are crazy.” A lot of other people have reached the same conclusion. It took them a little longer, though, but she managed to say that. Then we had a very engaging and direct conversation for several minutes and chatted for quite a long time.

I spoke with her on a number of other occasions and met with her on a lot of occasions. We attended many charitable functions together. She was one of those people with whom one could always disagree. I think it is fair to say I disagreed with Esther on a lot of issues, not only on that one but also on some others. I never felt that she bore any kind of personal grudge against people who disagreed with her. She felt very strongly on behalf of her community. She fought very hard on its behalf. She raised a remarkable family. She did it all.

It is with a great sense of sadness that I express on our behalf our very real condolences to the family. But frankly, and it is always hard to say this on these occasions, we also celebrate her remarkable life. She gave a lot. She fought hard and she enjoyed life. She enjoyed politics and she enjoyed people. That is a very good lesson and a good memory for all of us to carry with us, which is what we all will do.

Mr. Speaker: On behalf of all members, as soon as the official record is printed, I will send a copy of Hansard to the Shiner family so that they will be aware of your words of sympathy.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. B. Rae: On this most joyous of days, I have a question to the Premier. Perhaps the Premier can explain it to me once again.

The Attorney General (Mr. Scott) gave a speech last week which I assume represents the position of the government, since he told me today that the government of Ontario is his only client and I assume he is acting on behalf of that client when he gives speeches to the bar association.

The Attorney General was really quite emphatic and definitive about what he thought of the deal and its constitutional implications as an invasion of provincial powers, saying he disagreed fundamentally with the view that the deal fell within the purview of federal power exclusively and he accepted as a precedent the 1981 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the repatriation, wherein the Supreme Court stated very clearly, as a precedent, that it regarded the need for federal-provincial co-operation and bargaining as essential as we head into a major change in the constitutional makeup of the country.

I remain completely perplexed by the position the Premier has put forward. One time he said he would do anything he could to stop the deal. He said he would fight every step of the way to stop the deal. He said there could be no deal. Then he backed off that position.

Why is it that today he is not in a position to announce clearly and categorically just what the strategy of the Ontario government is going to be in order to defeat this deal?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The honourable leader and I had a discussion last week on this identical question. We have the Attorney General here in the House today. He is willing, I am sure, and very capable of explaining his constitutional views to the honourable member. I think it might be helpful for this discussion if I refer this to the Attorney General to illuminate his former student with respect to the constitutional ramifications of the free trade agreement.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The usual procedure is just to refer the question immediately. Is there agreement that it be referred?

Mr. Pope: No.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: It is a contradiction.

Mr. B. Rae: No. I am always glad to talk to the Attorney General, but the Premier is in the House. It is nice to see him here. I would like him to answer the question I am putting to him. He is here as the first minister. Presumably, he is the one who is going to decide what kind of challenge the province will mount to this decision by the federal government.

I think we are entitled to hear from the Premier exactly why it is, given the position that has been set out on behalf of Ontario, that he does not now think it appropriate or right or reasonable for the government to state today that it is going to launch a challenge to this action by the government of Canada. Either the action by the government of Canada is unconstitutional or it is not. Which is his position?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am happy to discuss it again with my honourable colleague. He has read the Attorney General’s speech and he knows there are constitutional implications throughout. That being said, the question comes under one of three categories.

Is the treaty referable to the courts? From the best legal advice that we have, it is not referable. It is under the purview of federal responsibility to conclude a treaty, and a court challenge specifically on the treaty would probably not yield positive results.

1410

Second, my honourable friend may ask me if we would like to frame a theoretical question for reference to the courts. Again, the best legal advice I have -- and if he has any question about this, please address it to the Attorney General -- is that if one did frame a theoretical question it would not be conclusive in any respect because there are so many other potential questions that could be framed and probably would lead us nowhere.

The critical question really is the implementation of the various terms of the so-called free trade accord. At this moment, it is not clear what kind of implementation legislation will be requested by the federal government. There are specific areas in the wine industry -- I use that as a specific example -- where we believe it is in the area of provincial responsibility.

As the Attorney General pointed out, I think very wisely, in his speech last week, there are a number of areas in the accord that potentially could be under provincial jurisdiction: services, agriculture and a variety of other things that some time in the future could be the subject of some litigation, if not by this province then perhaps by some other province.

If, for example, a province wants to do something in the future, it may be ruled contrary to the free trade accord and there could be some discussion on that. There is also, as the Attorney General has pointed out to the members, section 103, and the implementation of the “all necessary measures” provision could indeed force some clarification in the future as it pertains to a specific piece of implementation legislation.

So I say to my friend, in conclusion, the best legal advice we have at the moment -- and I rely on the esteemed Attorney General for that, with his battery of advisers, some of the finest in the country -- is that at this moment there is nothing that could be referred that would yield any significant results.

Mr. B. Rae: Since everyone knows we are here debating a resolution which the Premier is insisting that we have, and perhaps since the Premier has indicated he is now throwing in the towel in terms of doing anything before the January 2 date -- he has indicated he does not intend to launch a court challenge of any kind, at least until well after implementation legislation is in, and even then he is not prepared to tell us he is going to do it; he is sort of throwing in the towel inch by inch, not all at once, because God knows that would be much too decisive a thing to do, but just letting it sort of inch its way out -- perhaps I might ask:

Why is the Premier insisting, in his sort of Rambo imitation on Friday -- having been Clark Kent on Thursday, he decided to come back as Rambo on Friday -- that we have to sit here come hell or high water, right through Christmas, Christmas Day, Hanukkah? It does not matter what the holiday is or what the time is, we have to sit here to give him a resolution. What for, if he is not going to use a resolution in order to defeat this treaty? Why the charade?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am sorry the members have interrupted his holiday in that regard, but I say to my honourable friend that he is the one who is constantly in this House, saying “a clear and formal message forward that Ontario does not approve of this trade agreement.” That is what my honourable friend has asked for, and now there is a resolution before this House, put forward as soon as the text was received, that says we do not approve of this free trade agreement.

I believe, as my colleagues do, that a resolution of this House will in the clearest way possible put forward to the American government that we do not approve of the implementation of this particular treaty. We do not approve of its signing and we believe that a critical date is prior to January 2.

Mr. B. Rae: But don’t do anything about it.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My honourable friend can hoot and holler all he likes. He can frame a phoney war if he so likes in this matter, but let me say to him that in opposition he may have the luxury of making some of these excessive cases, but the government does not have the luxury of this oversimplification of a very complicated case.

NUCLEAR POWER

Mr. B. Rae: It is perfectly clear what the Premier is engaged in. Since the Premier has so clearly dropped the ball and broken his word on free trade and has demonstrated that again today, I would like to ask him a question now about nuclear power.

Perhaps he can indicate now where he stands on that question, having indicated so clearly in 1983, in 1984, in 1985 and most recently in 1986 when he said, and I quote from the November 16 Toronto Star, “I do not see another Darlington being built.” Hydro says, and I am quoting from the Hydro report, “When new major supply is required, there would be significant potential loss of benefit to Ontario Hydro’s customers if the Candu nuclear option was no longer available. “ It goes on to say, “Therefore, it is important that the Candu nuclear option be maintained if this can be done at reasonable cost.”

Is the Premier prepared to tell us now, categorically, after having been in government for over two years, just what is his new position now on nuclear power?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We have the demand-supply study coming forward. That will be subjected to a thorough review by members of this Legislature and others leading to a decision. No decision has been made in that regard to what the future holds in store, but certainly we will have to clearly review the demand-supply options as the ministers have pointed out over the last couple of years. There have been significant changes in Hydro’s direction in the last couple of years, and we will review all of that and come to a conclusion together.

Mr. B. Rae: The Premier says his position is now clear and that is that he has not made a decision. Is the Premier therefore repudiating the comments which were attributed to one of his aides on August 29, 1987 -- ironically, of course, in the middle of the election campaign? He said, “We are not going to go for a new nuclear plant and neither has Hydro asked for it.” The Toronto Star reported that Vince Borg said: “The Liberals plan to meet future power needs by building more hydroelectric and coal-fired plants and promoting conservation, not building more nuclear plants. Borg gave his assurance that the government has not wavered from its opposition to nuclear energy.”

Now Vince has gone to another line of work. The Premier was quite glad to have him act as his spokesman during the election campaign, holding out a very clear statement, not qualified with all the mishmash that his statement today is qualified with. The select committee has had two years to study this question. They have looked at the supply-demand options. Can the Premier tell us just what is the position now of the Liberal government with respect to the future of nuclear power?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: No final decision has been made on how to meet the current demands or indeed any agreement on what they are. We will have the base document coming forward. It will have wide and thorough discussion from all sectors of society. Some time in the next couple of years, a decision will have to be made on what direction we go in as a society. I recognize, as the member does, that those are difficult and complicated discussions but it will have a thorough airing and nothing is ruled in.

Mr. B. Rae: In 1983, the Premier said, when he was the leader of the Liberal Party, “It is madness to keep rushing headlong into such a nuclear future.” On January 28, 1984, he said: “I do not see it as an end. I see it only as something to tide us over until we get to the ultimate energy solution.” Later on in 1984, he said: “It is cheaper to close Darlington down and write off that money than it is to proceed. It should never have been started.” On April 23, 1985, he said: “Our position is very clear. My predisposition is not to proceed with Darlington. Darlington is a very horrible mistake.”

I could go on and on about what he has said about Darlington and what he has said about nuclear power. I would like to ask the Premier just where does he stand on this question? Does the Premier not think we are entitled to know an answer to that question?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: If one goes back over the entire history of the whole matter, the member will recall when I was in the House in 1975 when we started into a discussion of this matter, the original projected cost was some $2.4 billion. It turned out to be $11 billion. I said during the 1985 campaign that matter would be referred to a committee of this Legislature, as it was, and we got the advice of the committee of the Legislature, having expended $7 billion --

Mr. B. Rae: Yes, you never saw those guys before. You never met them before, eh?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We did exactly what we said we would do in that regard because $7 billion had been expended. Now we have a clean slate walking forward and all of the options will be assessed, including conservation, smaller-scale development, cogeneration and a variety of others. I think there are options and every one of those will be thoroughly canvassed.

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. Brandt: My question is for the Premier. As the Premier is aware, some months ago the Premier established a cabinet subcommittee -- in fact, very shortly after the election -- to study the impact of free trade on Ontario. As the Premier is also aware, that subcommittee has not reported any of its findings to the Legislature nor has it had an opportunity to report its findings to the finance committee which was established again with the purpose of having it review the findings of that subcommittee. In addition, the Premier has put a resolution before this House which indicates a direction to the finance committee long before the cabinet subcommittee has reported.

Will the Premier now admit, as many have been saying, that the cabinet subcommittee was nothing more than a farce and has absolutely no relevancy to the debate on free trade whatsoever?

1420

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I take exception to what the honourable gentleman would want to put forward in this House. Very much to the contrary, as soon as the preliminary agreement was tendered, I believe on October 5 or October 6 -- in that time frame -- the cabinet subcommittee set about to do a thorough analysis on the basis of that preliminary agreement, obviously in the absence of the final text. Hearings were held across the province and people had an opportunity to express their points of view. Indeed, I think it was a very instructive process.

That report will be coming along forthwith and that analysis of the preliminary agreement will be shared with the economics committee to fold into its analysis of the specific text. The more light we can shed on this from all different points of view, the more constructive the debate will be. I think it is important in a complicated discussion like this to let the public have its say on this matter.

Mr. Brandt: That has got to be the strangest answer I have ever heard from the Premier on a question I have raised with him.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: There have been stranger ones.

Mr. Brandt: There have been some other strange answers, I agree, but that one really is quite strange, recognizing that the Premier is saying he wants the public to have a say on what the impact is going to be, whether positive or negative, with respect to the free trade debate, but he wants in advance of that debate to have a resolution before the finance committee that establishes the terms of reference, with a very narrow focus on one part of the debate only. Then he stands before this House and indicates he wants an open, fair and equitable debate so that all the province of Ontario can be heard.

I ask the Premier, will he redirect the information he has given to his minister and have him bring in a neutral resolution for forwarding to the finance committee, so that we can get on with an appropriate discussion at the committee level with respect to the whole question of free trade and this province?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member may say that I gave him a strange answer. That was the strangest question I have ever had in this House. Now the member is asking this government to be neutral on the situation.

I want him to know where this government stands on the matter. I think it is important that all other affected parties, i.e., the Canadian government and the American government, understand where Ontario stands. The member understands where this government stands; I understand where the New Democratic Party stands; I understand where the member stands as well. He has every opportunity to stand up and make his point of view known, as he has done in the past and I assume will continue to do in the future.

I want there to be no misunderstanding when that agreement is signed on January 2. Contrary to the views some people have expressed in this House that there may be some misunderstanding of where Ontario stands, let me tell members very clearly that the government of this province stands behind that resolution presented in this House.

Mr. Brandt: I am so pleased to hear that the government of Ontario stands behind a resolution that breaks with parliamentary tradition in this House and is totally unacceptable to either of the opposition parties, for different reasons, in that the government is attempting to direct a resolution to a committee which should at least have the opportunity to debate openly and very carefully and clearly this matter in committee without any direction from the government. Surely the Premier is not expecting us to believe that we need this kind of resolution, this kind of mock statement, put before this House in order to establish where he stands on the question.

Can I ask him why it is so important for him to have this resolution prior to January 2 when he himself, in response to a question by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae), indicated that there is no magic associated with the date of January 2. What is his hurry within the matter of the last few days to put this resolution before this House, recognizing we were going to debate this matter fully in committee?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think there is some confusion in the honourable member’s mind and I would be very happy to clear it up. First of all, there is a resolution of the government before this House. It is not that resolution that is referred to the committee; it is a resolution of this House so the American government --

Mr. Brandt: Which is referred to a committee.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It is not. The committee will pick up on that matter and it has the power to so do. They will pick up and start discussing the free trade agreement at their pleasure. I am not sure if they have had any meetings already; they may have. They will conduct their own public hearings in the way they so choose with input from all sides of this House. I think that is an important part of this ongoing debate. It is not this resolution that is referred. The committee is picking it up on its own, as it has the power to do. I hope that disabuses my friend of his misconception in that regard.

Second, he asked me about the importance or the efficacy of the January 2 date. I do not think it is an important date, but the Prime Minister does, because that triggers the fast-track process in the United States. I want it to be very clear to the Prime Minister, the President of the United States and the appropriate officials where Ontario stands on this matter. Lest there be any equivocation, lest there be any sense that it has not been formally conveyed, I want that to be conveyed formally prior to that date.

That is why this debate in this House is so salutary, so wholesome. I think it is important that all members who so desire should have an opportunity to express their point of view, to read the copy of the text to each other, if they would like to, so that all members fully understand what we are involved in. I am persuaded, after they have listened to the powerful understandings of some of my colleagues, that they will perhaps come to the conclusion that they have made a mistake in this matter.

Mr. Speaker: New question. The member for Sarnia.

Mr. Brandt: I do want to thank the Premier for a rather convoluted, but interesting response to a question that I thought was very direct. I thought at the very least we could get a direct answer back.

Let me ask the Premier about a question I raised last week with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter). I am sure the Premier does not like to hear this because we do not have the opportunity to discuss this in committee in a rather unfettered fashion without a resolution that is going to inhibit the discussion of the committee, so we have to discuss some of these matters in the House, as the Premier can well appreciate. At that time, I indicated to the minister that big business, small business, the auto industries -- particularly the Big Three -- steel companies, all these groups were in favour of a trade agreement.

I also pointed out, and I know that the Premier does not like to hear this either, that seven out of 10 premiers in this great country of ours have already indicated their support for a trade agreement. In response, his minister indicated that the people who care are opposed to the deal. Then he went on to indicate certain labour groups and teacher organizations and so forth.

Would the Premier now like to dissociate himself from the remarks of his Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, who has indicated by reflection, if we look at his remarks, that seven out of 10 premiers in this country do not care about Canada, because that is exactly what he said?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Just to keep my honourable friend’s remarks completely accurate, I think it is not seven. It is six and three quarters who are in favour at the moment and three opposed.

Mr. B. Rae: Yes, and two and a half opposed.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am going to tell Howard Pawley the member called him a half. He is going to be very upset with the member.

Mr. B. Rae: No, no, no. Don’t try that one.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do my best to try to keep the socialists together right across the country. The socialists are falling apart, it is quite clear.

Mr. Speaker: Response.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Let my honourable friend recite some of these groups that are in favour. He is quite right. A lot of those groups appeared in front of the honourable minister and his associates, putting their points of view forward. I understand that.

I am sure the honourable member will want to stand in his place today and say he was wrong when he cited last week that the auto parts manufacturers supported this deal, because they do not. They believe they will lose under that. I think he will want to clear that up, particularly because my friend is from Sarnia and southwestern Ontario, where there are so many automotive parts manufacturers who will probably face some harm under this deal. My honourable friend will want to make sure he fairly puts their position forward.

I recognize that there are people in favour of this. The motor vehicle manufacturers are. But as I said to the member last week, if I was an assembler out of Detroit, Chrysler, General Motors, Ford, I would be in favour of it too because it plays exactly to their interests of running the automotive business out of Detroit. I say that as kindly as I possibly can and I have said it to them. It gives them a flexibility they did not have in the past.

I do not believe it is in the national interest and I believe we will pay a price over a long period of time for signing this deal. I am sorry that we disagree profoundly on this matter. We will have a discussion about the nature and the quality of the deal, how much we gave up as a country --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order; supplementary.

1430

Mr. Brandt: I have to say to the Premier that in his response to me, he indicated how very important, how critical, how vital this question was to the people of Ontario and to the people of Canada. If this debate is so important, important enough for the Leader of the Opposition to be here and important enough for me to be here and to discuss, as I went through my introductory remarks for a few minutes the other evening, some of the reasons why I support this agreement and why I support the concept of free trade, can the Premier indicate to the House why he has not spent more than a passing few minutes in this House at best during the course of the entire debate? Where has he been?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It may come as a surprise to the honourable member but I do follow the debates that go on in this House. I listen to them and I read them, and I follow the points made by my honourable colleagues in this House. It may come as a surprise to the member -- I am not sure -- that I have other responsibilities as well in conducting the affairs of this province and I try to deal with them all as best I possibly can.

My honourable friend feels insulted that I am not here to listen to his every debate. Frankly, I say to you as kindly as I possibly can that a lot of your contributions are not worth spending a whole bunch of time listening to. They can be précised down into two or three lines and we can get on with other matters at the same time.

Mr. Brandt: That is quite the same attitude you took with the cabinet subcommittee. As long as they agreed with your point of view, it was just fine for them to appear before the subcommittee. I gather that anyone who appears in front of the finance committee would have to reflect your point of view because it would have to reflect your resolution. You know full well it would have to reflect your resolution.

To show you the kind of attitude, Mr. Speaker, that the members of this House -- I very clearly heard the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) say that the only reason New Brunswick supported this deal was it was bought off by the frigate deal. I think that is beneath your minister. That is exactly what he said. If he wants to deny it, he can stand up and deny it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Brandt: I have not asked the question.

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate that. I was waiting for your supplementary. However, I ask all members to place their questions and all members to place their responses through the chair.

Mr. Brandt: Through you, Mr. Speaker, I apologize for getting offtrack for a moment, but I was taken offtrack by the Minister of the Environment and his comment.

My final supplementary to the Premier is very simple. In order to get on with the business of this House and in order to deal with this question in a responsible and appropriate fashion, will he remove the resolution that his House leader has put before us and, if necessary, send a neutral resolution to the finance committee? He has a majority in the House. He has a majority in that committee. He will ultimately win the vote. I can count too and I know the numbers. Will he allow this House to get on with this business as it agreed to do and send a neutral resolution to the committee as he should have done in the first place?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: There is some misunderstanding and I want to clear it up. There is no resolution going to the committee. The text is going to the committee. There is a fundamental misunderstanding. I think the member will want to speak to his House leader in that regard and that will clear up the question. All that is going is the text. I think, if I am right, that the chairman of the committee is nodding his head; that is what is there. The resolution we are discussing in this House is not going to that committee. The resolution in this House is going to the federal government and to the government of the United States, so that they clearly understand the intention and will of the majority of the legislators in this House. That is what it is all about.

FUTURES PROGRAM

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I have a question, through you, to the Minister of Skills Development over there.

Mr. Rae: Ah, goody-goody.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: There has to be a goody-goody in every crowd.

It is about the Futures program. In July 1986 the minister’s predecessor said, “Futures has been an overwhelming success.” In the estimates debate, the minister said: “Futures has been a phenomenal success in enhancing the employability of young people. Since Futures centres opened their doors across Ontario, we have served more than 75,000 young clients.” For some reason or other, he did not say that 50 per cent of them never complete the course.

I have here the second-quarter statistics from his ministry about completion. Fewer than 50 per cent of the young men and women involved finish the courses, and until he brought forward the neutral category of outcomes, fewer than 50 per cent would even have had a positive outcome coming out of the program.

Can he answer me two questions today? What other training system, with a 50 per cent completion record, would consider itself an overwhelming success? How can he consider the following to be neutral outcomes: noncompletion, voluntary withdrawal; noncompletion, lost contact; and noncompletion, incarceration?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I want to thank the honourable member for his question. I want to respond to the member. During the estimates, of course, we went into detail and explained all of those criteria or things he felt he was not clear on. I thought he would have been quite clear on those matters.

Futures is a program designed to assist hard-to-employ young people to improve their employability through counselling and through skills and educational upgrading. The program has been tremendously successful. As I said, it has a phenomenal success rate. There are people who did not complete the program because they chose to go back to school. We regard that as a success. Some people just need a little hand up and some encouragement, as we said, through counselling. The member does not see that as a matter of success. I see that as a matter of success.

I have been involved with youth for years. Sometimes we feel that some people would need a three-year program or a six-month program in order to equip them for employment. Some people need less and sometimes they go on to the field of employability.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: That certainly explains why jail is a neutral outcome to these students.

This minister does not even know who it is who does not complete the program. He has no idea of the profile of those students. I know he will be as shocked as I am.

I presume the minister is aware of the Toronto Star article on the weekend which indicated that one of his new additions announced just before the election, the part-time work and part-time school approach, has been attacked by one of his administrators in the field who says he “has three youths in Hamilton on the program and in regional meetings it has emerged that not one centre has more than five using it.”

Can the minister tell us which is the more significant problem? Is it the one Mr. Buttrum indicates in that article, that there is not enough money, that minimum wage and $100 a week is not enough to interest these kids at this time; or is it more like the one in the briefing note the minister was given during the estimates around this question, which I happened to receive, that the schools and school boards around the province are not yet ready to administer this program?

Two items that are raised there are that some schools are unable to begin delivering the educational requirements in a timely manner, and some educational officials are reluctant to serve youths under 19 years of age. Which of those matters is the reason why this program is not working at all?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I should remind the honourable member that Futures is not an employment agency; it is not there to get jobs for the hard-to-employ. I stated earlier on what Futures is all about.

I presume we can play with statistics and then measure that. We know that 11 per cent of those people who have been through Futures return to school. I am also fully aware that 28 per cent retain the jobs that Futures was able to get for them. We also know that 31 per cent of those students or those clients go on to other employment. We regard that as a success.

The other matter he asked about, being criticized by one of the employers in Hamilton --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

1440

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. Pope: I have a question for the Premier. In the face of the opinion from members of the Liberal caucus that the new Liberal Premier of New Brunswick was bought off on the free trade deal by the purchase of some frigate contracts, I would like to ask the Premier his opinion about a couple of other matters.

The Premier is adopting the position that he wants this resolution adopted today to send a clear message to Ottawa, I gather because he has not sent a clear message to Ottawa. I guess that is what he is saying. Given the effects of section 132 of the Constitution, which gives clear rights to the Parliament and government of Canada for the performing of obligations of the country or any province under any treaty, can the Premier tell me, in his opinion, which provisions of the free trade agreement can be implemented only by provincial legislation?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My guess is the specific one at the moment would be with respect to wine. At this moment, I have no idea how the federal government will choose to treat that particular issue.

As the member knows, the free trade agreement deals with certain provisions with respect to wine markups, listing practices and other things. I think one of the points the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) made in his speech is that there are a number of areas of potential jurisdiction that have been affected.

Again, we cannot predict what would come along that would pre-empt some kind of dispute over jurisdiction for this province or others in the areas of energy, services, agriculture, resources and regional subsidies at some time in the future. But I think the specific one we are talking about at the moment is probably in the wine area.

Mr. Pope: I take it the Premier is just discussing some general subjects. My question was whether there were any specific provisions of this agreement that could be implemented only by provincial legislation. Obviously, he does not know.

Could he table any legal opinions that he has with respect to implementation? I say this because last Thursday we heard in an aside from the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter) that he in fact has legal opinions with respect to the free trade agreement text that he has not produced, at the very time the Legislature is considering this resolution.

I do not know why he has not produced them. I do not know why he has not produced the details of the positions he took in 18 negotiating-committee meetings that his officials attended this year alone on this deal. He has not produced those either. Is he going to produce the necessary documentation so that we can have a review of the government’s position and advice on this matter? What is he hiding?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As I told the honourable member, the Attorney General is undertaking a constitutional audit now, looking at each section and the potential legal disputes in the future. That will be clearly shared with the members. One of the problems he had is that he could not do a complete legal assessment on the basis of the preliminary text. He had to have the final agreement, because presumably there were problems that could be created and/or solved by the final text. Now it is there.

His constitutional team is working on it and as soon as it is available -- we expect January or February, in that timeline -- we will give it to the honourable members for their further study.

Mr. Pope: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: On Thursday the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology said that those opinions existed and that he had them. The Premier is saying they do not.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

HAZARDOUS SPILL

Mr. Miller: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. On Saturday, December 12, over 300,000 litres of bunker oil were spilled into Hickory Creek in the city of Nanticoke after a pipeline being used to pump the bunker oil to a cargo ship on Lake Erie from the Texaco Nanticoke refinery was punctured. Can the minister inform the Legislature of the status of the cleanup of the spill?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Yes, I can inform the member that, first of all, there was no question of the spill not being attended to immediately. The member will know that despite some rather severe opposition to the spills bill when it was proclaimed by this government -- that it would cause problems for many people -- it has in fact established the legal responsibility up front. As a result, we have a situation where Texaco and the Ministry of the Environment were both on the scene immediately and the cleanup was commenced immediately.

There have been a number of actions taken by the company, Texaco. Those actions have been very closely supervised by the Ministry of the Environment to ensure there was not an escape of oil, for instance, into Lake Erie. The containment is largely on the property of Texaco, and in any of the subsequent work that is done, such as the excavation of the oil-contaminated area, that material will be taken back to the Texaco site.

Mr. Miller: What steps are being taken to ensure that a similar accident does not occur? Is there any assurance that any funds will be made available for damages to the farmers in the area?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I can tell the member that the investigations and enforcement branch has been on the scene and has been conducting an investigation. Part of the things it does is collect water samples. At the present time, we are awaiting the results of the analysis. In addition to that, our officials are discussing with the company the pipeline itself, the texture of the pipeline and any operational problems that may have arisen, to ensure there is not a repetition of those kinds of problems.

As far as compensation is concerned, if anyone were involved outside of the property, the responsibility would be on the part of Texaco. They would go to Texaco to seek the appropriate compensation. If they have a problem with that, then they go to the Environmental Compensation Corp., which is in the position of settling those kinds of disputes.

In this specific case, which to my recollection is one of the largest spills I can remember in Ontario involving oil, all these matters have been looked after to the satisfaction of the member.

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. B. Rae: The Premier said today how desperately he needs an unequivocal statement of where Ontario stands. If that were true, perhaps one could ask why he did not vote for our motion that was presented to the House over a month ago. But even in terms of his own resolution, I wonder if the Premier can explain the ultimate equivocation that is contained in the final paragraph of his own resolution, where he states, “the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario...will not be bound to implement those aspects which fall under provincial jurisdiction.”

Could the Premier explain to the House why the resolution does not just say “will not implement”? Why does he add the words “will not be bound to”? Is he trying to weasel out of something there, as well?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Not at all. I think it is quite clear on the face of it.

Mr. B. Rae: That is not clear and unequivocal. Would the Premier not agree that by failing to use the words -- clearly the categorical words, the clear words, the everyday English words which we use -- “will not implement,” and by substituting other qualifying, weaselly, sucker-clause-type words which the Premier has put in --

An hon. member: Now you’ve got Scott’s attention.

Mr. B. Rae: Perhaps I have counsel’s attention now. Would the Premier not agree that it will still be possible for the province to implement those aspects of the agreement in a year’s time or a year-and-a-half’s time or two years’ time, whenever he decides with another shrug of his shoulders to say: “I don’t know, guys. What do you think I should do? Maybe I should do it”? Is it not possible to say: “Oh no, no. We didn’t say we wouldn’t implement them. We only said we wouldn’t be bound to implement them”?

Does the Premier not accept that there is a fundamental equivocation there, a kind of weaselly word, rather than a strong, clear, categorical word which he could have used?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: No. I do not accept that there is a difference in that regard. I think that is very clear to my friend. He thinks it is suckery or weaselly or whatever words he wants to use in that case, but I just say to him that is not the case at all. That says very clearly that we reserve the right not to implement things that are within our jurisdiction and we will not do so. It is very clear.

Mr. Pope: My question is to the Premier. Based on the response to that last question, we have yet another evolution of this government’s position that it is going to reserve to implement or not to implement. That is exactly what the Premier just said to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) in this House -- another evolution of his position.

Last Thursday, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter) said he had legal opinions supporting the government’s position on the text of the free trade agreement. Is he right or not? Does the Premier have those agreements, and if so, why will he not table them today during this debate?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I appreciate the honourable member sharing his views. He will have to ask the minister what he said. He is at Mrs. Shiner’s funeral and he will be here today, I expect, so the member should ask him that question.

As far as I know, we are doing a constitutional audit and we will be happy to share it with the members; no problem.

Mr. Pope: It is clear, then, this government either has opinions that it is not tabling, as the minister indicated last Thursday, or it has no legal opinions to base its opposition to the text of the agreement on. One or the other is true.

Given that this government participated in 18 meetings of the co-ordinating committee on trade negotiation since January 7, 1987, and since his minister is unable to table any documentation from those meetings to help in this debate, will the Premier now rise and put on the public record his positions taken, as a government, for those 18 meetings during 1987?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not know why my honourable friend would persist in that. I think he is a little paranoid, I say with great respect. The Attorney General (Mr. Scott) gave him the legal opinion publicly -- all there for everyone to see -- last week. What more could he possibly ask than that? We are happy to share that information.

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

Mr. Faubert: My question is for the Minister of Skills Development. I have been informed that the federal government is planning changes to the funding mechanisms for apprenticeship training programs. Can the minister advise if this is true, and if so, what is the nature of those changes?

Hon. Mr. Curling: The federal government has announced that as of April 1, 1988, it will fund apprenticeship programs under its skills shortages program. That is under their Canadian Jobs Strategy.

We have no problem with that. Under that program, though, there is a limited amount that would be paid for the portion of instructional costs in schools, the in-school costs. That will reduce the amount of funds that will be forwarded to that program.

We are concerned that at one stage the government of Canada is encouraging a training culture and expanding its training options, and in another stage it is reducing the in-school costs funding to these programs.

Yes, it is true they intend to do that. It is a proposal at this moment, and we hope they will consider it and give it the full funding costs that it so deserves.

Mr. Faubert: Will the minister advise the House what action he plans to take regarding this proposal?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I have written to the Honourable Benoît Bouchard in that regard to point out to him that this is not the direction to go. I took the opportunity too to share this information with the other ministers of labour adjustments, to say that this is not the direction to go, and I think he will reconsider this proposal.

As the member knows, what we have done in Ontario will be increasing our apprenticeship program from 40,000 to 60,000 people to be trained in the next five years. So we have moved and have also doubled our funding in Ontario’s Training Strategy program to make sure that more people are trained in the workforce.

BEEF FARMERS

Mr. Hampton: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. During the fiscal year 1986-87, changes were made in the food additives at Ministry of Agriculture and Food bull testing stations. Beef farmers across Ontario believe they lost hundreds of thousands of dollars as a result of the adverse effects caused by the food additive changes at the bull testing stations.

The minister knows that most of the beef farmers in this province cannot afford those kinds of losses and they cannot afford to carry them for a great length of time. What is his ministry prepared to do on behalf of those beef farmers?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: A study committee has investigated the bloat problem in bulls at the various bull testing stations. They feel they have come up with the answer to the problem. But since there could well be a legal challenge in the courts, it would be very difficult for me to elaborate any further, other than to say that we feel we know what the problem is. We have already taken steps to correct the problem, but we feel it is going to be in the hands of the legal people.

Mr. Hampton: It is one thing to say there may be a potential legal problem. The fact of the matter is that his ministry set up a task force to study the problem. It started studying it last May, and his own officials indicate he has had the report for at least a month. Why has the report not been at least released to the beef producers of this province so they have some idea of what is going to happen, so they have some idea of where they stand and so they have access to this information? Why has he not released the report?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I think I already answered that question when I was responding to the member’s initial question. The fact of the matter is that the manufacturer of the product may well be challenged in the courts. It has been suggested to us by our legal advisers that the report not be submitted until we know exactly what is going to happen regarding the use of this particular product, which is apparently what caused the bloat problems in the bulls at the various test stations.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr. Jackson: I have a question for the Premier. Is it the position of the Premier’s government that there should be one law for persons of heterosexual orientation and another law for persons of homosexual orientation?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We are doing all we can to take discrimination out of our laws. If my honourable friend has a situation that we can make improvements on, he should please let me know.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Is there a supplementary?

Mr. Jackson: The supplementary is a suggested improvement. If that is the case, I wonder why the Premier’s new conflict legislation for members of this House applies to marriages and to heterosexual relationships but not to homosexual relationships.

Earlier this year, during the 33rd Parliament, the former member for St. George, Ms. Susan Fish, moved an amendment to the Premier’s original bill that would have extended the law to cover homosexual relationships. In fact, on June 30, 1987, Lorrie Goldstein reported in his paper a conversation with the Attorney General (Mr. Scott). He quoted, “Scott told me...he would have had no problem supporting her proposed amendment regarding homosexuals.”

This bill is currently going to be reviewed by the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly. It will be tabling that bill in its final form in this House, approximately February 8, 1988. Will government MPPs be directed by the Premier to support an amendment to ensure that homosexual relationships are not given a special exemption from his conflict guidelines?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: That is the whole object of the review in the committee. Frankly, I am not in the habit of ordering anybody to do anything; and any time I do, they do not obey anyway, so what is the point of it?

May I just say to my honourable friend it is not an amendment that I personally would be uncomfortable with. I assume that if the member opposite is part of the committee, or if someone else wants to move that, I think it is a very reasonable area for the committee to discuss. Whatever the committee decides, I would be comfortable with. I am comfortable with it if my friend wants to move it.

SUPPORT PAYMENTS

Mr. Callahan: I have a question for the Attorney General. There is an indication in the Globe and Mail today that a court ordered support payments for a deserted wife of $1,000 a month. They total some $100,000 in arrears. The husband was apparently in arrears to the Department of National Revenue, and the Divisional Court, in a unanimous judgement, found that Revenue Canada could take priority over the support payments to this deserted wife.

I would like to ask the Attorney General if there is anything that we can do within our jurisdiction to overcome such difficulties in the future, recognizing that the purpose of support payments is to look after women and children who have been deserted?

1500

Hon. Mr. Scott: I thank the honourable member for his question. As he knows, our Family Law Act, passed in the last parliament, provides explicitly that an order made in favour of a spouse or children will take precedence over any claim by the Ontario Ministry of Revenue. We have no capacity to bind the federal government in that way, of course, and the only remedy to avoid the kind of result that is evidenced in this case is to get Parliament to pass an act that says payments will take precedence over Revenue Canada’s claims.

Mr. Callahan: In the light of the answer to that question, would the Attorney General press his counterpart in Ottawa to take such steps, recognizing the importance of support payments to both the deserted children and women in this province, and not allow Revenue Canada to jump in and actually overcome and divert those funds from those very needy people?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I will be glad to do so and I am sure all parties will join in that request, particularly the leader of the third party. Perhaps the next time the Prime Minister of Canada is here, the leader can use a couple of the minutes in his important meeting to bring this great inequity at the federal level to his attention.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Swart: My question is to the Minister of Financial Institutions. He will recall that about three weeks ago he made an announcement in this House that he was permitting auto insurance companies to increase their rates by 4.5 per cent effective January 1, which will mean about $135 million to the motorists of this province. I remind him that at that time he said the information on which the raise was based was the same “as that available to all members of this House.” Of course, the only information available to us was that the insurers had made record profits last year, which are up by another 50 per cent this year.

Can the minister confirm, first, that no actuarial study had been done to determine whether there was in fact any need for the increase and, second, whether any additional information has surfaced in the last three weeks to justify or negate this increase?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I do not believe even the honourable member can inform the House as to the specific profit position that is associated with underwriting the automobile insurance part of the industry. I think he is also aware that when the rates were capped last April, many of the companies had gone without a raise for almost a year.

Interjections.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I know this is something that stimulates the sensitivity of the socialists in this regard, but the member will also be aware that it was not possible for us to proceed with the legislation because of political incidents that intervened, such as an election. We have gone forward with the bill as expeditiously and efficiently as was possible, and we hope the committee will report it back to the Legislature for enactment in February, by the time the board is in place so that it can deal with these things. We felt that such an increase was justified under those circumstances.

Mr. Swart: I inform the minister that his own superintendent of insurance said last April 25 that rates had been increasing for the last year at about two per cent per month. Also, I inform the minister that new figures are out this morning from Statistics Canada showing the property and casualty insurance profits for the third quarter of 1987. They hit a new high of $298.6 million, up 13 per cent from the same period last year. That means that in the first nine months of this year, those insurers made net profits of $1,034 billion, more than they made in a whole year last year, and last year they made one third more than they had ever made in their history.

I suggest that this bloated pig has had enough. He does not really need another trip to the Liberal pork barrel. I ask the minister specifically, will he now give a commitment that the 4.5 per cent increase of January 1 will be postponed indefinitely until an in-depth examination is made to justify the need for that increase?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: No.

ROUGE VALLEY

Mrs. Marland: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. Last week, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) introduced the Conservation Land Act to encourage the preservation of areas of natural and scientific interest and to provide incentives to property owners to maintain the special features of these lands.

I am sure the residents of Scarborough would rather be applying for these grants to help preserve the Rouge Valley instead of spending money fighting a government that speaks from both sides of its mouth.

I would ask the minister if he can see the inherent conflict in these policy directions and ask him to acknowledge his responsibility as the Minister of the Environment to protect the Rouge Valley lands.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I do not see any contradiction in what the Minister of Natural Resources has had to say, which is a very progressive and enlightened policy he announced for the province of Ontario, one for which the people of Ontario have been waiting for a number of years and one which it took the present Minister of Natural Resources to implement.

With regard to the lands in Scarborough, as the member would know, I have indicated in the House previously that I will be bringing to the attention of the cabinet all the environmental considerations before any particular decision has been made.

She knows that governments balance off the need for various needs that come in the province of Ontario. The gentleman who sits beside her has on many occasions talked about the utilization of land for the purposes of public housing and low-income housing, because he recognizes that there is a significant situation in this province.

I want to indicate, as I have on every occasion, that I will be bringing to the cabinet the environmental point of view on this particular piece of property.

Mr. Cousens: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: He really has not faced up to the answer that is needed for the people in Scarborough or the people from Markham who are concerned about the use of government lands, especially the Rouge Valley and his --

Mr. Speaker: Order. That sounds more like a point of view to me.

PETITIONS

THERAPY FOR ABUSED CHILDREN

Mr. M. C. Ray: I have a petition addressed to members of the Legislative Assembly from citizens of Windsor, members of St. Matthew’s Anglican Church in south Windsor, urging the government of Ontario to fund sexual abuse treatment programs as mandatory programs of children’s aid societies rather than as discretionary programs in the present.

LIQUOR STORE

Mr. Kozyra: I have today three petitions to introduce to the House.

The first is from residents of the town of Kapuskasing regarding the closure of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario outlet on Byng Avenue. The residents are opposed to this action.

SHANNON LAKE ROAD

Mr. Kozyra: In the second petition, residents of Hearst and area request that the Shannon Lake Road be kept open and maintained by the government of Ontario for recreational purposes for both the people of the region and tourists.

MOOSE TAG LOTTERY; REMOTE TOURIST AREA

Mr. Kozyra: Finally, I have a petition from a group of residents from the Cochrane and Timmins area. The petition is twofold. The residents oppose the present system of allocating moose tags for the hunting season. The group also opposes the Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association white-paper proposal presented to this government to create a remote and controlled tourist area.

HELP CENTRES

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

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

“That this government recall that its opposition to the free trade agreement will cost thousands of jobs in Ontario;

“That this government note that almost 25 per cent of the older workers’ help centres have closed in the last two years; and

“That the government reconsider the current funding formula for the York Help Centre in the city of York.”

Mrs. Marland: I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario:

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

“That this government recall that its opposition to the free trade agreement will cost thousands of Ontario jobs;

“That this government note that almost 25 per cent of older workers’ help centres have closed in the last two years;

And that the government reconsider the current funding for labour and community services in Mississauga.”

1510

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario:

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

“That this government recall that its opposition to the free trade agreement will cost thousands of Ontario jobs;

That this government note that almost 25 per cent of older workers’ help centres have closed in the last two years;

And that the government reconsider the current funding formula for the Centre for Employable Workers in Guelph.”

Mr. Cousens: I would like to present this petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario:

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

“That this government recall that its opposition to the free trade agreement will cost thousands of Ontario jobs;

“That this government note that almost 25 per cent of older workers’ help centres have closed in the last two years;

“And that the government reconsider the current funding formula for the York region help centre.”

So presented.

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

“Whereas the free trade agreement about to be signed between the Dominion of Canada and the United States of America will provide immense sectoral and regional economic benefits to the people of our nation, we, the undersigned petitioners, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

“That the government consider the achievement of a free trade agreement with the United States to be considered consistent with our policy traditions as an independent nation state;

“That the government consider the significance of Mr. Mulroney’s success in obtaining a precedent-setting, binding dispute resolution mechanism:

“That the government pay heed to the fact that Prime Minister Mulroney has concluded the largest and most far-reaching bilateral trade agreement in our economic history;

“That the government not forget that the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade encourages and allows for bilateral freer trade agreements between signatories to the GATT;

“That the government observe that under the terms of the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States, shipments of agricultural products between our two countries will no longer be subject to a burdensome, inefficient, redundant and unproductive $300-per-truck licence fee;

“That this government note that the threshold limit for review of direct takeovers by foreign principals will be raised to $25 million upon implementation of the agreement and to $150 million by the third anniversary of the signing of this historic agreement; that is to say, Wednesday, the second day of January, 1991;

“That the government remain apprised of the fact that if a foreign-owned subsidiary is acquired as part of a larger acquisition by another foreign-owned company, that is to say an indirect acquisition, the aforementioned threshold level will be raised in several steps and review will eventually be eliminated;

“That this government, and in particular the Minister of Culture and Communications, note the following characteristics of the free trade agreement: that the free trade agreement recognizes the Canadian determination to ensure that Canadians continue to have access to their own cultural products and that the free trade agreement confirms that solid, firm, resolute, unyielding, vigorous and quite characteristically caring and responsive commitment to defend and promote our Canadian culture;

“That the government sense the significance of the fact that this nation has secured an undertaking from the United States of America not to introduce new quota restrictions on products that are central to Canada’s agricultural production, including grains and oil seeds;

“That this government remember that the food processing industry in central and Atlantic Canada will benefit immensely from the undertaking of the United States of America and that there will be no new restrictions in the area of processed food with a sugar content that does not exceed one tenth of one per cent;

“That this government remain cognizant of the reality that the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec have retained intact their marketing boards and their supply management systems, particularly as they pertain to the entire dairy and feather industries, poultry, chicken, eggs, both brown and white, and all dairy, including ice cream, yogurt, buttermilk, cream, table cream, milk, cottage cheese, cheddar cheese and other cheese, milk chocolate and curds and whey; and,

“Finally, that this government abandon its narrow-minded, parochial, stick-in-the-mud, irrational, unreasoned, unreasonable and radically and fundamentally incoherent and incomprehensible rejection of the free trade agreement and embrace the bold initiative of the Mulroney government for the sake of Ontario and all of Canada.”

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

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

“That this government recall that its opposition to the free trade agreement will cost thousands of Ontario jobs;

“That this government note that almost 25 per cent of the older workers’ help centres have closed in the last two years;

“And that the government reconsider its current funding formula for the Unemployed Assistance Centre of Peterborough.”

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

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

“That this government recall that its opposition to the free trade agreement will cost thousands of Ontario jobs; that this government note that almost 25 per cent of older workers’ help centres have closed in the last two years; and that the government reconsider the current funding formula for the Cambridge and District Unemployed Help Centre.”

RETAIL STORE HOURS

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

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

“We believe in the importance of keeping Sunday as a common pause day so that all people may have physical, spiritual and social health. We are concerned about the quality of life and the wellbeing of the people of our province and we object to the further commercializing of life through the Liberal government’s proposed Sunday shopping legislation.”

HELP CENTRES

Mr. McLean: I have another 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:

“That this government recall that its opposition to the free trade agreement will cost thousands of Ontario jobs;

“That this government note that almost 25 per cent of older workers’ help centres have closed in the last two years;

“And that the government reconsider the current funding formula for the Lindsay Unemployed Help Centre.”

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Adams from the standing committee on social development reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amount and to defray the expenses of the Office Responsible for Disabled Persons be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1988:

Office Responsible for Disabled Persons program, $2,519,000.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Laughren from the standing committee on resources development reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Housing be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1988:

Ministry administration program, $9,036,300; building industry and housing supply program, $12,372,400; social housing program, $230,019,100; rent review program, $16,529,700.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

INTERNATIONAL SALE OF GOODS ACT / LOI SUR LA VENTE INTERNATIONALE DE MARCHANDISES

Hon. Mr. Scott moved first reading of Bill 90, An Act respecting the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods.

L’hon. M. Scott propose la première lecture du projet de loi 90, Loi concernant la Convention des Nations Unies sur les contrats de vente internationale de marchandises.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

1520

WINDSOR UTILITIES COMMISSION ACT

Mr. M. C. Ray moved first reading of Bill Pr62, An Act respecting the Windsor Utilities Commission.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES (CONTINUED)

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

Mr. Pope: It is a pleasure to be back today to continue this important debate that all three parties in this Legislature have participated in on a rotational basis. I know that debate will continue during the course of this week and next week as we deal with this most important fundamental trade agreement that affects the people of Ontario.

Lest there be any doubt, I want to reiterate a couple of points. First of all, we are sitting this week to debate this most important matter because the Premier (Mr. Peterson), as he said today during question period, wants to send a clear, unequivocal message to the government of Canada, the presumption being that he has not done so in the past, which is precisely the position the New Democratic Party, the official opposition, has been taking for some months now.

Second, I think it is clear that on the occasion of this most important debate the Premier himself has not been present or participated at all in this debate, not only with respect to the comments of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae), given when I was present and the Premier was not, not only with respect to the leader of the third party whose comments were given when I was present and the Premier was not, but the Premier was not even present when the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter) led off the debate with respect to the Premier’s own government’s position.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Where is your leader?

Mr. Pope: My leader, I say to the Minister of Natural Resources participated in this debate. He thought it was important enough to be here and participate, which is quite different from the arrogance demonstrated by the Liberal government’s Premier in this most important debate. I think it is also clear that the attitude of this government is deteriorating vis-à-vis others who have some thoughtful disagreement with this government on its position on the free trade matter.

Last week we had the fact that Frank McKenna, the newly elected Liberal Premier of New Brunswick, finally came on board and said he thought, on balance, the free trade agreement was a good thing.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: He came on board six frigates.

Mr. Pope: The Minister of Natural Resources has just said, for the record, exactly what the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) said during question period, that Mr. McKenna came on board for six frigates.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I didn’t say that at all. I said he came on board six frigates.

Mr. Pope: The minister did.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Some people’s ships come in and some people have six ships come in.

Mr. Pope: In other words, the Liberal Premier of New Brunswick is not recognized by the Liberal government of Ontario as having any integrity in his position on this free trade agreement. As the Minister of the Environment said, he was bought off for six frigates and the Minister of Natural Resources reiterates a relationship between the six-frigate contract and the free trade agreement.

If the Liberals want to take that position towards one another in this country, that is their business, but it shows us the kind of statesmanship that the Liberal government of Ontario has engaged in from the very outset of this free trade debate. Frank McKenna will be very anxious to hear the Liberal Party’s comments in this province about the reasons for his position on the free trade agreement. He will be very interested in this government’s interpretation of his whole process of decision-making and the people he consulted with, including the Premier of this province.

The Liberal Party of Ontario may not have respect for the Premier of New Brunswick, but we do. I think it is a disgraceful performance when two members of cabinet today cast aspersions on the newly elected Liberal Premier of New Brunswick. It is an absolute disgrace.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: What are you talking about? It was a good deal. Don’t cast aspersions.

Mr. Pope: I am not worried about their yelling or hooting, Mr. Speaker. They are ashamed of their position. I can understand that. The shame is spreading from one end of this chamber to the other over the Liberal Party’s position vis-à-vis one of their confrères, a newly elected Liberal Premier in Atlantic Canada. That is the opinion that this Liberal Party of Ontario has towards him.

[Applause]

Mr. Pope: They may well applaud. They applaud to reinforce that attitude, which we do not think adds to a sense of nation-building that we require right now in this country. We do not think it adds to national unity when the Premier of this province at some future date will have to consult with the newly elected Liberal Premier of New Brunswick, Frank McKenna, on very important issues concerning the Constitution and national economic issues.

Now that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology is here, and we know why he was absent, I want to go back to a question that we raised with the Premier in question period.

The Premier denies that there exist legal opinions with respect to the free trade agreement text. He has denied what the minister said existed on Thursday of this week. I think we are entitled to an opinion. During the course of my debate, the minister said he had updated legal opinions which had examined the text of the free trade agreement.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: That’s right. I didn’t say it was ready.

Mr. Pope: Oh, I see. He does not have any legal opinions ready. Now what kind of weasel words are those? He has legal opinions, but they are not ready.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I think there should be a clarification. What had happened, as I am sure the member will know, was that on the Sunday after the free trade agreement came out --

The Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order. It is a point of explanation.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Can I rise on a point of information?

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I recognize the member for Cochrane South. If others have a different point of view they may take their turn and speak afterwards. The member for Cochrane South.

Mr. Pope: Thank you. I do not mind if the Minister for Industry, Trade and Technology wants to clarify the record.

The Deputy Speaker: The member will address his comments through the chair, please.

Mr. Pope: Yes, thank you very much. I presume the minister is going to say he had verbal legal opinions given to him, but they are not in a documented form and therefore cannot be produced. The minister is nodding. Is that a fair representation? OK?

I want to deal with that because it is obvious, therefore, that this government, when we are having this very important debate on this resolution which fixes this Legislature’s position on the free trade agreement -- the committee will not, but this resolution will, and that is why the Premier wants it, because he claims he has not fixed his position in the context of federal-provincial meetings or first ministers’ meetings or any of his co-ordinating committee meetings that have been held over this year -- has verbal legal opinions which have reviewed the free trade agreement, but nothing has been put in writing.

Therefore, he cannot table anything. There is no written documentation of any opinion which reinforces the Hogan opinion or the very first opinions given, not on the free trade agreement text itself, but on the 35-page general agreement document.

I say that is not an appropriate position for this government to take on this most important issue. It is the government which wants this resolution through because of some mythical timetable of January 2. It is the government which wants the members of this Legislative Assembly to take a position on the free trade agreement, and yet it has no documentation to table other than what it has already given us.

The government has done nothing with respect to Ontario’s positions taken during the co-ordinating committee meetings. It has already agreed that it is not going to table documents from those meetings, as it cannot because of the understanding with respect to federal and provincial confidentiality and with respect to certain client groups from which it obtained information.

The fact of the matter is, I say to the people of this province, that this government wants this Legislature and them to take a position on this very important issue when the legality and the legal effects of this agreement are the primary issues and it has no written opinions it can share with the people of Ontario or with the assembly of the people of Ontario.

That means this government has not done its homework. It means it has not fixed its legal position with any certainty and it means it is unwilling to do so, and therefore is unwilling to table the documents, the facts, for the people of this province and the Ontario Legislature to examine.

I do not think that is appropriate. I do not think that is responsible government for one iota on this most important, unique opportunity. I reiterate to the people of this province and to the members of the assembly that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology admitted in estimates that not only had the Premier of this province participated in first ministers’ meetings where the free trade negotiations were discussed at length, not only had the Premier participated in meetings directly with the Prime Minister of this country on the free trade agreement, but his officials and officials of other government ministries had participated, from January 7 of this year alone, in 18 different sessions of the co-ordinating committee on trade negotiations. Ontario was in the room.

That becomes important when we look at some of the jurisdictional arguments proposed by the Attorney General (Mr. Scott). How can the government claim it has not been consulted? How can it claim the provinces have not been consulted, that there has not been the kind of federal-provincial communication that preceded the final constitutional accord in 1982-1983 when the facts say otherwise, when the Premier has engaged in first ministers’ meetings on this issue, when officials from the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology and many other front-line ministries have participated in the detailed negotiation with respect to the text and the matters to be covered by the free trade agreement?

In spite of what this government said, in spite of the hopes of the opposition that the government would not participate in any negotiation of this agreement or the detail of it at all, it is clear that the government has. It has enmeshed itself in the process and removed any framework of constitutional challenge based on nonagreement. It is clear that this has taken place.

1530

I say to the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet (Mr. Elston), who is shaking his head, that his own Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology in estimates last week indicated that on 18 occasions this year alone his officials and the officials of this government negotiated the details of this comprehensive trading arrangement with the United States of America. It is clear that the Premier attended first ministers’ meeting after first ministers’ meeting. He can shake his head in the negative all he wants; the facts are there, on the admission of his own ministers on the record.

I want to turn my attention to the Attorney General’s speech to the bar association and what I call the last judicial retreat on this matter. In fact, it is a desperate last judicial stand on this matter, which is evidenced by the Attorney General’s comments last week. It is a judicial last stand if I have ever seen one.

It completes the retreat from constitutional veto, it completes the retreat from refusal to implement and it completes the retreat that the Premier began in question period in this House last week when he said, in the very same sentence, first, that he did not think the treaty itself, the agreement, was referable to the Supreme Court and, second, even if it was, we would not win the reference. On the one hand, he says it is not referable; on the other hand, in the same sentence, he says it is, but we would lose.

Then he says a most curious thing: they would have to see the wording of the enabling legislation in the federal Parliament before they would decide whether or not there is any provincial challenge to that enabling legislation. That is the ultimate and total capitulation of the argument that was given by the Premier over so many months, that somehow the Liberal government of Ontario had some sort of constitutional challenge in the wind that would stop this dead in its tracks. While they were saying that, by the way, they were participating in the negotiation of this document.

I would like to refer to the remarks of the Attorney General to the Canadian Bar Association, Ontario corporate counsel and business law section. The speech was given on Tuesday, December 15, 1987. It is a rather curious document which I think deserves some examination in detail.

First, I do not pretend to have the self-professed expertise that this Attorney General does, but I have been an Attorney General. I have examined a number of the constitutional arguments. I have been engaged in the practice of law and I would like to say in all kindness to the Attorney General that any examination of this document, as has been undertaken over the last few days by constitutional law experts, indicates not only that the Attorney General and this government’s position is definitely a minority position with respect to constitutional law principles but also that it is a judicial last stand and a retreat of Ontario’s previous proud position.

Hon. Mr. Elston: Is that what Simon Reisman says?

Mr. Pope: It is more than Simon Reisman, I say to the Chairman of Management Board. It is experts who have been consulted by the media and by different organizations in this province. It is directly in conflict with two considered opinions, by Fasken and Calvin and by Fraser and Beatty, that were tabled in this House last week, and it is directly in contradiction to the prevailing weight of scholarly opinion on matters related to constitutional law.

The Attorney General has yet to participate in this debate and explain his constitutional position. I presume he will do so. I welcome his involvement in this debate because I think he owes an explanation to the people of Ontario.

On page 3, the Attorney General indicates, “I would characterize the proposed trade agreement as a constitutional document.” In his own words, it is a constitutional document. “Consider the following...it touches on virtually all aspects of governmental activity, from economic regulation to taxation to subsidies.”

That is his point of view. That is not a point of view shared by the federal government; that is not a point of view shared by this Legislature. In fact, this treaty touches no more on virtually all aspects of government activity from economic regulation to taxation to subsidies than any other international treaty that is signed from time to time by any federal government. That is the truth of the matter. It has no unique application. It is a major document, but it does not touch on virtually all aspects, to quote the Attorney General.

He indicates, “The proposed agreement imposes new constraints on what Canadian governments can do for people in the future.” Surely that is a position that cannot be defended in light of the exemptions for the cultural industries and in the light of the exemptions under the energy provisions of the free trade agreement which it allows. It allows the Canadian government to intervene when there is a shortage of domestic supply, when there is a problem with respect to price, or when there is a need for conservation. Surely it does not stand examination of the text of the free trade agreement. That opinion does not stand in the face of any kind of examination of the free trade agreement. We have to presume that either the Attorney General was generalizing or he had not examined the text when he made that statement.

The agreement does not impose new constraints on what Canadian people can do for people in the future. That is not true at all. It is no more constraining of the federal government than a countervailed duty application or a quota application or a congressional trade bill. It deals with matters of trade. Whenever you have action with respect to trade emanating from one jurisdiction or another, of course you have some influences or some effect vis-à-vis state, provincial and federal governments, but this is no different from any of that. Therefore it is not unique in that circumstance.

He indicates that “the free trade agreement is an erosion of our ability to govern ourselves that would be extremely difficult to reverse.” It is no more an erosion of our ability to govern ourselves than any other countervailed duty application, any other congressional trade bill, or any other action taken in any other jurisdiction that may have an impact on exports from Canada to another marketing jurisdiction resulting in layoffs or other problems within the exporting jurisdiction. Therefore it is not at all uniquely an erosion of our ability to govern ourselves that will be extremely difficult to reverse.

In fact, the text of the free trade agreement itself is even better, vis-à-vis our own sovereignty and our own abilities to implement national and provincial programs than the 35-page text. So if anything, the impact of some suggestions that the Premier has made, the impact of some of the criticisms of the general pact itself when it was signed, have been reflected in the final text. That is clear from anyone’s reading of that text.

The Attorney General says: “The federal government has assumed the obligation to ensure that the provinces comply with the agreement. This will involve a duty on the federal government to interfere with actions taken by provinces within their jurisdiction.”

The only concrete example that the Premier could give today was wines. It is clear that this government is moving to implement the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade ruling in any event and the GATT ruling had virtually the same effect as the provisions of the free trade agreement. So in the only specific example that the Premier could come up with today in question period, he is already getting implementation of that policy in any event. The argument is 10 years versus 12 years. A 12-year implementation of the GATT recommendation is 10 years under free trade.

There is no different obligation of the federal government than that recognized by section 132 of our Constitution: “The Parliament and government of Canada shall have all powers necessary or proper for performing the obligations of Canada or any province thereof as part of the British Empire towards foreign countries arising under treaties between the Empire and such foreign countries.”

That obligation to implement on behalf of the federal government and the province already exists in our Constitution. There is nothing unusual or unique in a free trade agreement or any treaty having some power vis-à-vis the federal jurisdiction over the provincial jurisdiction, no change whatsoever. That has been clearly dealt with in this country in basic constitutional law texts for the last 100 years.

For the last 100 years in this country, there has been a clear recognition that the federal government has the power to implement treaties and, in doing so, may in some fashion or another impact on the provincial jurisdictions. It is clear constitutional law. Laskin, the casebook on constitutional law, Hogan on constitutional law, turn to any constitutional law text and that is clear. So there is nothing unusual in the Attorney General’s statement that he makes as a supposed attack on the free trade agreement.

1540

Next, the Attorney General says the agreement amounts to a constitutional amendment and, “in my view, de facto constitutional change -- and a constitutional change of very significant magnitude.”

Using that rationale, any federal law, any provincial law, any treaty, any arrangements between provinces would constitute constitutional change. The fact of the matter is that this is a treaty with respect to trading matters and it is no different than any other treaty that deals with trading matters, other than the scope of it because we are dealing with our major customer that takes such a great percentage of our exports.

He now issues the following hypothesis on page 5 of his statement, “Ignoring the principles of federalism, the federal government has attempted to bargain away our powers,” i.e. the province’s. That is absolute nonsense. In paragraph after paragraph of the text of the free trade agreement itself, there is a specific recognition of constitutional authority wherever it may fall, vis-à-vis energy matters, vis-à-vis cultural matters, vis-à-vis financial institution matters. It is clear that it is all there.

There is nothing different in the text of this agreement with respect to the federal government’s powers to pass enabling legislation for a treaty and to implement a treaty than is found in section 132 of our Constitution, nothing different. There is an obligation on both federal governments, United States and Canada, to ensure compliance with this treaty, and this government participated in those negotiations. It was at the table. It dealt with all of these issues. It had its say, as did other provinces, and seven out of the 10 provinces support this agreement.

They support this agreement, in spite of the Attorney General’s opinion that the federal government has bargained away provincial rights. Seven out of 10 premiers disagree with him and support the agreement.

Hon. Mr. Elston: They weren’t at the table. Get your stuff straight.

Mr. Pope: The Premier participated in this matter from the beginning. He was informed about progress in the negotiations from the beginning, and his officials participated in every single continuing committee on free trade negotiation meeting that was held in this year.

Hon. Mr. Elston: Get your facts straight.

Mr. Pope: The Chairman of Management Board can disagree all he wants. He disagrees with his own Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

The Attorney General next says, “The only provisions which are acknowledged to be within provincial legislative jurisdiction are those dealing with wine,” the first federal claim being that the agreement is 97 per cent within federal jurisdiction. The Attorney General sets that out as a hypothesis emanating from the federal government in order to attack it. This is his comment. When the federal government says this agreement is 97 per cent within its jurisdiction and the only matter within provincial legislative authority is wine, he dismisses that claim by the federal government.

Guess what the Premier of this province said today in his reply in question period? When I asked him what provisions of the free trade agreement could be implemented only by provincial legislation, guess what he said? The only specific example he had was domestic wine. He adopted the federal position that the Attorney General last week tried to discredit.

How is that for a turnaround? What kind of a circle in logic is going on in this Legislature and in this government with respect to the free trade agreement?

Mr. Fleet: That’s utter nonsense.

Mr. Pope: His answer today in the Legislature, I say to Lord Fleet of Swansea, was exactly the federal position that the Attorney General attempted to discredit last week. Exactly.

The Attorney General goes on: “The second federal claim arises from and depends upon the first. Since the agreement supposedly deals with matters under federal legislative jurisdiction, the federal government claims it has the constitutional right to sign and implement the agreement unilaterally, regardless of provincial objections.”

Both these claims, he wants to suggest, are “insensitive, confrontational, misleading and, at worst, simply wrong.”

That is the Attorney General’s comment on the federal position, a federal position adopted by the Premier today in question period in reply to my questions about provincial enabling legislation.

I want to say it is clear, with seven out of the 10 provincial governments on side, the federal government has engaged in precisely the process the Supreme Court of Canada indicated was appropriate when it made its ruling on the proposed Constitution Act in 1981. This Premier, knowing the legal implications of that, proceeded merrily along. In attending first ministers’ meetings, in participating in the bargaining sessions, participating in the co-ordinating committee sessions, this Premier and this government, in spite of the opinions and suggestions of the New Democratic Party, knowingly embarked on a course of conduct over the past year and a half that removed any constitutional challenge on the basis of noninvolvement of Ontario. The government has done exactly that. It is well documented, my friend the Chairman of Management Board, that this government has done exactly that.

So there goes the constitutional challenge on the treaty itself. There goes the argument of the Attorney General on the constitutionality or on the fact that this agreement de facto amends the Constitution, because the government has participated in the very process that can be likened in a court of law to a constitutional amendment process. It can be likened. When there are seven out of 10 provinces on side, all with reservations perhaps, there goes the last vestige of even an argument in equity over a challenge of this treaty on a constitutional basis.

The Attorney General, on page 7 of his remarks, indicates, “In my view, the proposed trade agreement deals very substantially with matters falling under provincial jurisdiction.” Yet, I have looked very carefully through the balance of his text and I can find no specific references to provincial jurisdiction or provincial activity that he claims the trade agreement deals with very substantially; no specifics, no detail and therefore no kernel of an indication to this Legislature or the people of Ontario as to what enabling legislation will be challenged by Ontario, what aspects of the agreement will be challenged in the court. There is nothing at all and yet this government wants us to adopt a position opposing the free trade deal and to hear the Attorney General, we should oppose it on constitutional law grounds.

I say the case has not been proven. I challenge the Premier and the Attorney General to participate in this debate and put on record the detail of where provincial jurisdiction is impacted, what provincial laws would be necessary to implement the free trade agreement and what the very nature of the specific detailed challenge of Ontario to this agreement or to the enabling legislation will be? I have yet to hear this from either the Attorney General or from the Premier of this province.

On page 8, the Attorney General indicates: “The power that is being stripped from the provinces is not being given over to the federal government. Instead, it is being lost by both levels of government. In the future, Canadians will be unable, in a practical sense, to call on any government to do any of the things prohibited by this agreement.”

That is precisely the argument that I attempted to address last week and the Attorney General’s words here are as impractical and uninformed as the principle was when it was first advanced by this government. Any power is lost by any level of government when you have a countervail, when you have a quota, when you have a congressional trade bill that impacts on Canadian exports or Ontario exports to the United States. It has an impact on the people, it has an impact on the governments and therefore this agreement is no different in that sense than any other agreement.

For the Attorney General to say that power is being lost by both levels of government shows that he has not examined the trade dispute resolution mechanism, the binational panel. He has not proposed any changes to strengthen it. He has not examined the different matters which are excluded from the purview of this agreement and I presume from enabling legislation when it has been introduced and I do not think it is a position that the government of Ontario can now defend.

The Attorney General next says that the clauses in the agreement mean that the provisions of the agreement apply to provinces unless the provinces are specifically exempted. Provincial laws are now subject to challenge on the ground that they violate the terms of this agreement. My friends, provincial laws were subject to challenge in American courts of law because they have violated American trade law and the Crown Timber Act and crown dues and stumpage fees and subsidy supports for various industries, like potash, have always been the subject of challenge in other jurisdictions. Rulings of the International Trade Commission, rulings of the Secretary of Commerce, bills in the American Congress and rulings by the Supreme Court of the United States always challenge provincial and federal laws in an exporting jurisdiction where that impact is going to be felt.

1550

Surely we now have progress in that area. The decision is not going to be made in a Washington court of law or in the ITC offices in Washington. There is a binational panel with binding powers. You may argue about the specific provisions of article 1904 of the agreement and the various paragraphs of it, but it is clear, and the prevailing legal opinion is, that we have a binational panel system which vastly improves the ability of Canadians and of provincial governments to have a say in the ultimate resolution of trade matters. Therefore, contrary to the opinion of the Attorney General, provincial laws and federal laws are less subject to challenge under this agreement than they were under the existing status quo. Clearly, he is wrong.

The Attorney General as well attacks other aspects. I quote from page 12 of his speech: “Other explicit references to the provinces appear in the definition of ‘national treatment’ for both goods, services and investment.”

I specifically indicate that there is a difference between federal treatment of these issues and national treatment of these issues. A national treatment of these issues involves provincial agreement and federal agreement and, at the very least, having dealt with some of these matters before, all provinces in agreement and presenting a position to the federal government. That will not change under this agreement.

That spirit of co-operation will continue, except for the efforts of this current government to undermine that with its statement about Frank McKenna and other premiers of this country who are taking informed positions in good faith on the free trade agreement and who have not, contrary to the opinion of the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) and the Minister of the Environment, been bought off with federal government contracts for frigates.

Then the Attorney General, on page 13, goes on to use what the Leader of the Opposition has called qualifying phrases or weasel words. He does not come to a final and clear, succinct definition of the provincial government’s limits on power. He says, “Further, it remains unclear whether provincial attempts to limit the rate of production of a resource could be limited.”

It is unclear. This is the Attorney General of Ontario who is trying to give us some direction, give the people of this province some direction with respect to this free trade agreement, and he says it is not clear what the impact of this agreement will be on provincial government resource laws.

With respect, if that is the position of this government now, why does it today want a resolution condemning the agreement when it is unclear as to the impact of it?

He also goes on to say:

“An important goal of provincial regulation in this area has been consumer protection. In some instances, consumer protection takes the form of restrictions on the right of persons who are not resident in the province to carry on business here. Travel agents, for example, must be residents of Canada in order to be registered in Ontario. Other consumer protection measures restrict the amount of foreign ownership in certain companies. Collection agencies in Ontario cannot be more than 25 per cent foreign-owned.

“In future, these sorts of provincial consumer protection measures will be subject to the agreement.”

This from the same government that only a few months ago opened up the securities industry to Americans and other foreign companies. The same government that took that position now seeks to hide behind this. It is not clear from the text of the agreement -- and the Attorney General is not saying that -- it is not clear that the provincial government may no longer enact consumer protection legislation. But it is the same kind of generalized, irrational attack on the agreement that is not founded on the basis of the wording of the text or on any legal opinion at all that has been tabled by this government. There is no indication of those kinds of concerns or those kinds of problems.

Here is the pièce de resistance on this whole matter:

“But the investment chapter of the agreement makes creation of any future schemes subject to a requirement to provide ‘prompt, adequate and effective compensation’ to the privately owned companies which might be affected.”

He is talking about public insurance schemes. Does that mean the Attorney General of this province is advancing the proposition that if there is any government takeover of automotive insurance schemes or health schemes or public insurance schemes, it is not going to provide prompt, adequate and effective compensation to privately owned companies that might be affected?

Is that what the Attorney General is advancing as a reason to frustrate or to veto the free trade deal or to not implement it, that this government may move in the future into public insurance and will not compensate those privately held companies that will be affected by it? That is what he is saying. That is one of the bases of his challenge on page 15 of his speech. I find that unacceptable. Even if he thinks it is a problem for the province, I find it unacceptable that would be the rationale for that particular challenge of the free trade agreement.

More equivocation or qualified opinions follow on page 16 of the Attorney General’s speech.

“The provinces currently have the right to promote and encourage small businesses by providing tax breaks, grants or other incentives. Some of these laws target the benefits to Canadian-owned businesses in order to maximize economic benefits for Canada. In future, such laws may be subject to challenge on the grounds that they constitute ‘unjustifiable discrimination’ between investors.”

That is a rather interesting statement, because he does not say that they will be challenged under the text of the free trade agreement. He is speaking as the Attorney General. He is giving legal opinions to the Canadian Bar Association. He is not saying they will be challenged; he says they may be challenged. And he does not give the basis for that challenge founded in the text of the free trade agreement at all.

On page 17, the Attorney General goes on to say:

“The legal text contains a new provision not in the preliminary transcript. That provision allows the United States to challenge and retaliate against any existing or future provincial measure that causes ‘nullification or impairment’ of any benefit it reasonably expected to receive under the agreement.”

That is no different from the provisions that now exist in United States trade law to challenge and retaliate against any existing or future provincial law that causes some impairment or harm to an American interest. It is no different from the existing status quo with respect to trade law in this country. In fact, we have a binational panel which improves it.

From page 18 of the Attorney General’s comments:

“The problem with this claim is that it ignores the most basic principle of federalism. This principle is that one order of government should not have the power to bargain away the power or jurisdiction of the other without consent.”

Clearly, the Prime Minister has engaged in a process that the Premier knowingly embarked upon, of consultation and negotiation with all provincial governments. In fact, seven of the 10 governments, through various stages of qualifications, are on board. It is Prince Edward Island, Manitoba and Ontario that are not. Clearly, there is a consensus within this country for the implementation of this agreement, if we look at the various levels of government, the jurisdictions. Seven of the provincial governments are on side, along with the federal government, we presume.

There has been an attempt made in the negotiation process to seek the informed advice of provincial governments and to put changes into the final text of this agreement which reflect provincial concerns. I think it is clear that is the basis the Attorney General is advancing, namely, that Ontario has a unique right in the presence of a majority consensus of all other provinces in favour of the agreement. With seven out of the 10 provinces on side, is the Attorney General seriously advancing the proposition that, because Ontario did not approve, that this deal cannot go ahead, that it is subject to constitutional challenge on that basis?

Is that the position of the province of Ontario? Is that what nation-building means to the Liberal government, that Ontario alone will dictate? Is that something like saying, as the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology said, “If it is bad for Ontario, it is bad for Canada?” Is that the concept of nationhood that the Liberal government of Ontario is now advancing in this House and through the Attorney General’s words, that if Ontario does not agree, the deal is off? Surely not.

Surely the consensus among provincial premiers holds sway. Surely the attempts of the federal government to seek the advice and to amend the documentation on the basis of provincial concern meets that concern. The Attorney General’s text is clearly in error with respect to any informed judicial opinion and, I predict, the Supreme Court ruling with respect to the proposed Constitution Act.

1600

There is a discussion by the Attorney General of that reference to the Supreme Court of Canada with respect to the proposed Constitution Act in the judgement that came down in September 1981. The Attorney General said:

“The court said that established constitutional convention requires significant provincial consent to the federal reform proposals. In the court’s view, in matters of constitutional reform, each level of government should exercise its legal rights in ways which respect the jurisdiction of the other.”

I want to reiterate the first sentence of that quotation. “The court said that established constitutional convention requires significant provincial consent to the federal reform proposals.”

Seven premiers are on side. Is that not significant provincial consent? Is that not significant? Most of the major economic groups in this province are on side. We read their quotes into the record last Thursday, and I am not going to do it again. But most of the major economic groups and industries in this province are on side.

From where is the province of Ontario speaking? For whom is it speaking? These are interesting questions. Certainly vis-à-vis the position of organized labour and the position of the New Democratic Party, the official opposition, the Liberal Party is not speaking for them because it will not take a specific concrete position on this matter. As the Leader of the Opposition said, they are using weasel words so that they can keep their decision in abeyance until some future date when they have analysed it all. They do not speak for them.

They wanted a strong, clear position from the outset. They wanted Ontario to veto the deal and not participate. The Liberals did not do that. Therefore, they have defied the position of the official opposition and the constituents that they and the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) will speak for in a few minutes.

Who do they speak for? They do not speak for the economic groups who last week clearly destroyed any last vestige of economic argument of disaster for the province. I do not think they speak with respect to the Constitution because they are in full-scale retreat there. Who are they speaking for, except for themselves?

There is a clear, national consensus emerging, and even if they were not on the side of the national consensus, they have not articulated or spoken strongly for the other point of view, as many have requested they do. In my view, by participating in the negotiating process, they have undermined the constitutional arguments of the Attorney General as set forth on pages 21 and 22 of the text of his speech to the Canadian Bar Association, Ontario section.

I think it is clear, and I want to quote from the Attorney General’s statement on page 25, that in fact the government of Ontario is taking a position that unless Ontario agrees, even if there is a national consensus, this treaty cannot be implemented. From Page 25:

“As for trade matters under provincial jurisdiction the government was committed to defining positions ‘that all provincial governments support and are ready to implement.’”

If that is the case, perhaps the Attorney General and the Premier, whom I challenge to participate in this debate, can indicate what positions they were prepared to support and were ready to implement on this agreement. If the position is that there is an obligation on the federal government to ensure that all provinces complied, that all provinces supported certain defined positions and were ready to implement them, what positions did Ontario take in detail during those 18 negotiating committee meetings?

I say to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, who was not here for question period today, for good reason, that the Premier in question period today indicated that he would immediately produce the positions that Ontario took on those 18 negotiating committee meetings that were held since January 7 of this year; not the documents that the minister says he cannot produce because of an agreement of confidentiality, not the documents supplied by other interest groups that might have some economic implications if they were to be released, but the positions that the government of Ontario took during those 18 negotiating meetings. The Premier said he had no problems with telling us what they were, but he did not tell us what they were.

I would hope that some spokesman for this government, during the course of this debate, will put on the record in detail, so we and the opposition party can examine exactly what the government said in private during these negotiating committee meetings; not what it says publicly for home consumption but what it said in private during the course of those negotiations.

Again, the Attorney General is waxing eloquent near the end of his speech:

“If the diverse needs and interests of all Canadians in all parts of the country are to flourish, then governments must exercise restraint and promote mutual respect in their dealings with one another.”

What is to be done?

“In view of these very serious concerns regarding the constitutional propriety of what is being proposed, the Premier has requested a detailed review of the implications of this agreement for the powers of provincial governments. I expect to receive shortly this constitutional audit. I will also ask my colleagues, the attorneys general for Canada and the provinces, to review this matter on a priority basis so that the concerns I have raised can be fully addressed.”

That is it. That is the response of this government to the constitutional challenge. That is the bottom line. Having started out by saying Ontario had a veto, having started out by saying Ontario can frustrate implementation of this agreement, the bottom line now is that it did not have a fixed constitutional opinion going in; it is now going to try to get one by way of a constitutional audit, and it is going to consult with other attorneys general in Canada and other provinces.

Some hard-line position that is. There is going to be consultation and a constitutional audit. What a turnaround from a government that boasted just a few months ago in the course of a provincial election that it would fight strongly for Ontario’s interests, that this free trade agreement would not meet its tests and therefore it would not implement or support it. We now are going to have some discussions on a federal-provincial level with attorneys general, and someone is eventually going to do a constitutional audit of the constitutional law issues that confront this government, because it does not have one now.

The strategy of this government with respect to the implementation of the free trade agreement is a shambles. It has lost the argument on the economic front; it has lost the argument on the federal-provincial front; it is losing the argument on the constitutional front. This statement by the Attorney General gives clear evidence that this government is in full retreat in virtually every aspect of this free trade agreement.

I want to indicate that a clear reading of section 132 on the treaty powers of the federal government, a clear reading of constitutional law by others than myself, indicates that not only does the federal government have the right to enter into treaties on any matters, but it has the right to introduce enabling legislation and to ensure under section 132 that the provinces adhere to those treaties. There is no special wording in this free trade agreement that is any different from that provision which is part of our Canadian Constitution.

It is clear that this is a treaty. It is clear that enabling legislation will be passed. It is clear that the Attorney General, speaking on behalf of the Liberal government of Ontario, has started a final, total retreat from the constitutional position that was taken during the election campaign. It is clear, from the Premier’s own words in question period last week, that this government has not even decided whether it would challenge any specific enabling legislation whatsoever on this agreement. In fact, it is not even sure that this treaty has to be enacted or put in place by any provincial law whatsoever, except perhaps for wine, where it is putting it into effect anyway.

1610

Because this government is in such disarray on this most important matter, in all kindness I suggest that it go back and do its homework with the economic and industrial groups and with the labour groups of this province and get a real fix on the consensus with respect to this agreement; that it go back and do its homework with the other premiers whom it has attacked as not caring -- to use the words of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology -- and whom it has attacked as being bought off by frigate contracts; that it go back and do its homework and try to be a positive force now in nation-building in Canada with this free trade agreement, instead of publicly staying outside the door and pouting, but privately going along with it every step of the way.

It cannot play it any more. It has no credibility any more if it continues with this course of action. It should get off the fence, come clear with the other premiers and the other provincial governments. It should talk to the other economic groups and committees and should not fight with them in the cabinet subcommittee on trade and challenge their opinion, as I have seen from time to time on television. I think they have more experience and more expertise in their various fields of endeavour than the cabinet ministers, with the greatest of respect.

Therefore, they should be listened to because they are the ones who are going to feel the impact of this agreement, not people sitting in the cabinet room down the hall from these chambers. It is they, and they have made an informed decision in favour of this agreement, a decision this government refuses to listen to. I think it is improper for a provincial government to take that attitude.

I believe one of the Liberal members talked about section 92, and I would like to as well. Since he raised it, I think it deserves some addressing. I would like to say a few things about the traditional jurisdictional powers of federal and provincial governments.

With respect to the scope of the federal trade and commerce power, I think it is clear that the traditional interpretation of this federal head of power, as found under the Constitution Act and previously in the British North America Act, is now in flux. There was a very restricted interpretation 100 to 150 years ago of the federal jurisdiction in matters related to trade and commerce. You could talk about the local prohibition case, which the Attorney General has been wont to rely upon as the most literal or restrictive interpretation on federal trade and commerce powers, but it is not the status quo and the Attorney General knows it. He does himself no credibility in citing it in trying to make his argument with respect to provincial powers in this matter.

The initial judicial interpretation or posture taken by the courts with respect to the scope of the federal trade and commerce power was given in the context of provincial legislative initiatives and in the absence of federal legislation or federal action on these matters. It was not given in the context of federal legislative initiatives at all but in the absence of those federal initiatives. That is a very important distinction with respect to constitutional law findings, as the Attorney General, if he were here, would tell us.

The provinces were passing laws in a legislative vacuum, and the question was whether or not the provinces could do it, as opposed to whether or not it could be done at all. Second, there were no conflicting laws enacted at the federal level for the courts to make the kind of assessment between jurisdictions that was required to give a true analysis of the scope of the federal trade and commerce power.

The Attorney General did not say this, but there is no doubt that 100 years ago, which is where he finds his precedent, the existing precedent in jurisprudence at the time and in those conditions allowed provinces to pass some measures that did have an impact and that did necessitate an interpretation of the scope of the federal trade and commerce power, but the retreat from that constitutional position or interpretation has been in full flight for the last 55 years in this country.

I quote from Bora Laskin on Constitutional Law: “The need to reconcile the power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada in relation to the regulation of trade and commerce with the powers reposed in the provinces cannot be lastingly met by imprisoning either the former or the latter within the predetermined limits which take no account of social and economic change.”

Those words are true, because we now live in a world of international trade. We live in a world where laws passed in one jurisdiction will directly impact the citizens and economic activities of those in another jurisdiction. The United States courts have ruled that the scope of the federal commerce power is as broad as the economic needs of the nation. Surely any examination of judicial interpretation over the last few years indicates that the Supreme Court of Canada is leaning, in its interpretations of the federal power over trade and commerce, in the direction of the economic and social needs of the nation as being one of the determinant factors in ruling on the scope and the efficacy of any federal legislation with respect to trade and commerce.

In fact, provincial legislation has been struck down where it has dealt with export or import control. In matters that are properly dealt with by treaty and by the federal government, where there is any impact on export or import control, provincial laws are being struck down. Or, where the economic facts are such that the only perceptible effect of provincial law will be on imports or exports, in those cases as well the Supreme Court of Canada is developing a jurisprudence of its own, founded not in cases like the local prohibition case ruled on by the Privy Council but in a new, modern constitutional, economic and social framework.

In fact, any fair assessment of the constitutional law cases will indicate that very little or no interpretation has been given to the reach of federal legislation under the ambit of federal trade and commerce power. It has been mainly examination of provincial statute.

The climate, I believe, is now much more favourable to the federal power than it has been or was 100 years ago. I believe the National Products Marketing Act case, the Farm Products Marketing Act case begin the process of accepting for trade and business, in so far as either is confined to the provinces, accepting that to the provincial jurisdiction only in so far as it is confined to the province alone and is not extraprovincial or international. Only with respect to trade within a province is the court, under the National Products Marketing Act case, prepared to rule that provincial legislation is constitutional and that federal legislation is therefore unconstitutional.

In the Farm Products Marketing Act case we have another development: that is, a reflection by the court on the limits of provincial and economic regulations in a more sophisticated sense than we had in the days of the Privy Council rulings 100 years ago, and that reflects the new economic realities, the new economic regime that the entire world lives under now.

For the first time, I believe the courts are ruling on the fact that a scope of provincial regulation was not incompatible with a paramount federal policy in matters that, in their totality, transcended provincial management. In other words, the courts are prepared to allocate a federal jurisdiction or a power on matters that transcend provincial jurisdiction in its totality. That is a very important progression from the provincial rights ambit of the early Privy Council rulings with respect to constitutional matters confronting this nation. Where we now are with respect to provincial authority over manufacturing and the sale of goods for consumption within the province, the authority of the province is quite well established. But for goods manufactured for export from the province, the authority of the province is not well established at all; in fact, it is subject to challenge. Surely, in the face of that challenge, which is current and ongoing, the federal jurisdiction has power to step in under constitutional law.

There are as well a number of cases with respect to natural resources and agriculture -- and specifically, for instance, with respect to grain -- which indicate both a federal authority and, in some aspects, a provincial authority. I would refer members to page 415 of Laskin on Constitutional Law for a general overview of that very important discussion.

1620

We also have in constitutional law the treaty obligations which I spoke of earlier. I want to quote from the Honourable Mr. Justice Rand, whom other members of other parties are wont to quote from time to time. The Honourable Mr. Justice Rand says:

“The totality of treaty-making action is a discrete and an entire subject matter and it is not possible to eliminate treaty character from legislation accomplishing its terms. In other words, enabling legislation will be treated in the same fashion as the treaty itself, vis-à-vis the powers of the federal government.”

That is the position of the Honourable Mr. Justice Rand, and I think that reflects the prevailing judicial opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada, although they may have a chance to rule on it in the near future.

The Honourable Mr. Justice Rand goes on to say:

“The entire subject matter, treaties, the entering into treaties, and the implementing of treaties, is a subject matter where its only place of reception is in the residual power of the Dominion, the federal government. Its only jurisdiction falls within the federal ambit, both with respect to adopting treaties and implementing treaties.”

That is a considered judicial opinion that I think has very much weight in this country today. So the Attorney General, in his self-serving constitutional interpretations, does not reflect, in my opinion, prevailing jurisprudence or prevailing judicial opinion in the country; and he should not presume to, nor do I. This is a matter that will be decided by the courts, but it is not as clear-cut as the Attorney General would have us believe when he made his presentation to the Canadian Bar Association last week.

I think it is clear that, even in matters of constitutional reform, or if any matter relates to an impact on constitutional powers under the constitution, where the provinces have been involved in the process and by their involvement have allowed this to happen, and by participating in first ministers’ conferences and negotiating committee meetings, they have passed the test of the Constitution Act that was set forward in the Supreme Court of Canada decision in September 1981.

Whether we want to use some of the old tests of constitutional law -- like the pith and substance argument, the incidental or deliberate infringement of powers, what is necessarily incidental or ancillary -- all of those arguments and to what degree they should be used -- or the paramountcy doctrine, or the property and civil rights test, or the peace, order and good government test -- l think it is clear that there is no jurisprudence that dictates that the opinions of the Attorney General given to the Canadian Bar Association will necessarily hold sway with the Supreme Court of Canada.

We have had this government go through a curious exercise. First of all it said, “Let the provinces and the federal government decide.” Then it said: “Let us have economics dictate. Let us have the economic interest groups decide whether or not we will go with the free trade agreement.” Then when that did not work, when the provincial governments rallied against it, when the economic groups in this province and across the country rallied against it, it is now saying, “Let the courts decide.”

I am looking for the ultimate rollback from that position as enunciated by the Attorney General to a simple resignation by the Premier that he hopes the matter will be dealt with in the next federal election. He hopes it will be dealt with then, in the election context, because that is where this government is clearly headed. It has been embarked on that course for some months; it just has not told us it was. I think the people of the province and the members of this Legislature are owed a detailed, specific and concrete explanation from this government as to its strategy from the outset and where it is headed with the economic interests and wellbeing of the people of Ontario.

If we had that information, if this government had co-operated in giving us this information, if it had made it available to the people of Ontario, if it was allowing a committee of this Legislature to go out and seek the opinions in a clear and open sense, we would not be here today. We would be allowing the people of the province to have their say, and this government, more importantly, would have had its say and would have tabled all the documentation that we know it now has.

Just to reiterate a few of the arguments as I close my portion of this debate, I think it is clear, from the comments of the members of the cabinet, who cares and who does not care, who got bought off by frigate contracts and who did not. I think it is clear that the members of this cabinet and this Liberal government are engaged in what they consider to be a catfight over an important national issue. It has long since abandoned any stance of nation-building or nationhood. It has long since abandoned the statesmanlike poses that it took outside first ministers’ meetings. It is now isolated in a minority position, with little credibility on trade matters. I think it is clear that this is the understanding of this country and of the people of Ontario.

This government is losing it. It is losing its positions. It has lost the national consensus, which is now against this government with seven premiers. It has lost the economic arguments of virtually every important economic group in this country except for the trade union movement. Even the trade union movement is upset with it because it has not lived up to its word and is not taking a strong enough position to advance the trade union movement’s interests. This government has lost that economic argument completely. It is in the process of losing the legal arguments. It has slowly but surely drawn in its horns on veto and the power to frustrate implementation. Slowly but surely it has been backed into a corner on this, in a position that is unmaintainable as advanced by the Attorney General last week.

Now this government is simply left with trying to ram through a final position of this Legislature as opposing the free trade agreement. It has not one semblance of an economic argument, not one semblance of a political argument in terms of national support left. It has not one semblance of a legal argument left. The only reason it wants to do this is that the Premier wants to send a signal which obviously he has not been able to send himself through his direct communication with the Prime Minister of Canada, the other premiers and the public of this country.

As I said at the outset, I believe there has been a two-track process that this government has engaged in. One is the public track and one is the private track. I indicated that it started with softwood lumber. It is evidenced by Pat Carney’s statements that this government takes one position in public and another in private. It is indicated in the congressmens’ statements that were made last week that the Leader of the Opposition brought forward in this House. It is indicated by the government’s position with respect to veto, and now its current legal position. It is indicated in the government’s position with respect to whether the federal government could implement the treaty versus its position now that it does not know whether it has any function to prevent implementation.

It is indicated in the government’s position on domestic wines, where it wants to implement the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade decision for the same reasons that it was in the free trade agreement. It is indicated with respect to financial services, where the government is willing to open up the international market of financial services in this province and deregulate trucking at the same time as it is opposing a free trade agreement.

It is indicated in the government’s international trade option that it talks about so glowingly and has done nothing about over the past two and a half years: no direct, specific approaches to foreign markets, other than through the federal Minister for International Trade; no direct action as opposed to what Quebec, the Atlantic provinces and British Columbia have done over an extended period of time.

It is indicated in the Premier’s initial six conditions, most of which have been met in their entirety by the draft of this free trade agreement which obviously this government, if it maintains its six conditions as being in effect today, has not even read. It is indicated in the legal opinions we have seen tabled and the current status of the legal opinions today.

I think it is clear that this government has a public position and a private position. It says one thing for political consumption and another thing for trade implementation and for industrial and economic purposes. It says one thing with respect to its posture vis-à-vis the international and North American market for trade and services and it says quite another on a sector-by-sector, commodity-by-commodity basis.

I think it is clear that this government has produced no concrete, specific alternatives to the status quo; nothing to help the farmers; nothing to help the bushmen and the mill workers in the lumber mills in northern Ontario; nothing to help the pulp and paper workers who are subject to challenge; nothing to help the iron ore miners; nothing to help the steelworkers; nothing concrete to help the Big Three auto makers; nothing to help the beef farmers of eastern Ontario; nothing to help the technology companies in southwestern Ontario and the food processors in southwestern Ontario.

1630

This government has nothing positive and concrete as an alternative to this agreement but it wants members to vote against the agreement. By voting against it, members vote for the status quo, with all that that brings. This government will do nothing to stand up for those who have felt the sting of countervail applications, quota impositions and congressional trade bills.

It has done nothing in the past and has nothing planned now. It will do nothing to help people with their current problems. In fact, it will not even fund the self-help centres for older workers. It will not even use its northern Ontario heritage fund to help the laid-off resource workers, as the Premier promised in January of this year. It will not even spend the money to help the resource-based communities in northern Ontario.

It is clear that we need access to the American market to continue our economic livelihoods across this province, to continue the economic benefits that flow from trade, to help our workers maintain their job security and their salary levels. It is clear that we need continued access to the American market, unencumbered, so that we can plan for economic and employment purposes and it is clear that this government has no answers and does not want to bother developing the answers.

It wants us today to vote against a free trade agreement in a vacuum, with no other consequences to give us other than the status quo; with no help for the workers who are subject to countervail and other trade embargoes and problems that will lead to loss of their jobs and livelihoods; no positive options for Ontario; no sense of where this nation is going or where this province is going on the trade issue, no sense of where this nation is going or this province is going with respect to economic matters that could be affected by a free trade agreement; nothing whatsoever.

This government wants us to vote to continue to maintain its position even though it is going virtually alone now. There are three provinces in total. Two others are on Ontario’s side, Manitoba and Prince Edward Island. Prevailing economic opinion from those who know, as opposed to the ministers who just suppose they know, is against them. The labour movement is upset with them because they have not fought to protect its interest. The opposition party is upset because the government will not lay the detailed information on the table so we can have an informed debate on this matter with documents that the government has in its possession and refuses to table.

For all these reasons and many, many more, this government does not have a position that is maintainable in this Legislature or anywhere in Ontario. I say to the government House leader that he should be ashamed that we are now, on December 21, here at his insistence to vote on a general resolution, as the Leader of the Opposition says, filled with weasel words, that does not give a clear direction to anybody, does not give a firm message in the Premier’s words, because he has not been able to do it -- an admission of failure if I have ever heard one -- and there are no positive alternatives for the workers and the industries of this province on the table.

What are we supposed to rely upon? Some general sense of loss of sovereignty that comes with every trading arrangement? Are we supposed to rely upon the government’s definition of what the agreement means in the absence of a text that says quite the contrary of what the government says it does? What are we supposed to do? Vote for a resolution because the Premier wants to slap something down on the table because he has not slapped anything on the table in terms of a positive, concrete contribution to this debate on a federal-provincial level or on an international level?

I think it is clear that this government has not acted in the best interests of the province. Even if we think their posture is in the best interests of the province, how they are posturing is not how they are acting in private. What they are saying in this Legislature is not what they are saying to the congressmen and the governors of the United States and to the senators. It is not what they are saying to the federal trade minister. It is not what they are saying to the other premiers of the provinces of this country.

We deserve better in this Legislature than we have got. We deserve more than a general resolution. We deserve the tabling of specific, concrete information. Tell us exactly what this government said during those 18 negotiating committee meetings. Tell us exactly what the constitutional legal position is of the Liberal government of Ontario on this agreement now. They know what it is. They know the enabling legislation is going to be simply adopting this treaty. They know what the enabling legislation is going to be.

Why will they not simply put on the table right now, before we vote, all the information that everyone has the right to see, and the people of this province have a right to see, so that we can make a judgement on the competence and the capacities of this government to handle an issue as critically important to the people of this province as the free trade agreement?

We have not seen that. We have not seen even a semblance of responsibility from our provincial government. We have not seen the grave words of the Premier to garner votes during an election campaign matched with concrete action in the privacy of the negotiating room. We have not seen details of this provincial government’s concurrence in and involvement in the finalization of the free trade agreement text and we have a right to see it before we vote on this resolution and before we sit in committee to look at a free trade agreement.

I call upon the Premier of this province to participate in this debate. He has refused to do so even though he says we are here this week to get this resolution through. I call upon the Attorney General to participate in this debate, to give us the benefit of his legal opinion, to refute the prevailing constitutional opinion that is against his.

I call upon the government ministers of the various ministries whose officials were involved in the negotiation of this agreement to step forward. Tell us what really went on behind the closed doors. Tell us about the 18 committee meetings they attended from January 7. Tell us what tradeoffs they made, what deals they made, what details, what they gave up and, in fact, how they have been involved in forming this free trade agreement and how they are going to be involved in implementing it, the same way they did with softwood lumber, the same way they did and are doing with domestic wine and the same way they are going to do with so many other commodities generated in Ontario and traded to the United States.

All in all, the performance of this government is disgraceful. The leadership exhibited by the Premier is also disgraceful. He was elected to lead this province in the free trade negotiations. He has abdicated his leadership. He refuses to get involved publicly in the debate. He wants to sit back and relax and let the cards fall where they may and let Ontario’s economic and cultural interests fall where they may.

He has no sense of nationhood, of what kind of a nation we should be, now in the face of this free trade agreement. He has no support among provincial premiers because he lacks credibility; he has no support among the economic groups in this country because he lacks credibility; he has no support in the Legislature of this province because he lacks credibility.

Mr. Mackenzie: I am not a moderate in terms of this particular issue. I am also not a lawyer and certainly do not proclaim to be an expert on free trade or the past history of it in this province, but I do have some very strong feelings as a Canadian and I do have some strong feelings as to where this particular agreement is taking us.

I have some sympathy with my colleague to the left for his feelings about the resolution we have been presented, although I would support it, as we have amended it, but my reasons, of course, are entirely different from his.

It seems to me that we built our country with a lot of difficulties and we built it really from coast to coast. It was a difficult building process in this country of ours, I guess because of the distances and the ribbon of population that is spread out along our border and because of the regional interests, whether they were maritime, central Canada or the west.

I think we have done a number of things that have been unique. I think we have also, in the course of building our country, taken a number of new initiatives. Who can argue with the development of a form, I guess, of public ownership -- we know it is not much more than that -- of Ontario Hydro? Who can argue with the fight that went on out west in Saskatchewan over hospitalization and medicare, a fight that eventually benefited and covered all of us right across this country?

These are all, and there are many more, instances of the kind of things we faced in building an individual consensus as to what we were in this country. It has been difficult to find what our national interest is, to really find something unique that says we are Canadians, but I think we are on the way to doing that.

1640

This sudden attempt to switch the focus from east-west to north-south, and even more than that, to switch the focus almost entirely to a marketplace economy where the marketplace is going to rule, is one that has nothing but bad connotations for this country of ours. It is an agreement which I think has been conceived in one heck of a lot of dishonesty.

I say that at the federal level, in terms of Mr. Mulroney’s comments captured, I think, in Thunder Bay, when he was running for leadership of the Conservative Party, when he said they would have nothing to do with free trade because it would be a threat to our sovereignty and made some other comments as well. It certainly was not perceived as his position when he was running for leadership of his party, and it was certainly not an issue that was raised during the federal election that resulted in the overwhelming Tory majority we had across this country.

But it did not take long for the marketplace forces, for Mr. Reagan and Mr. Mulroney, to get together and decide that regardless of what he had said before, the way for him to go, the way for him to guarantee that they were not going to have to look at the various pressure groups in this country of ours but were going to be able to let the marketplace rule, was with some kind of a comprehensive trade deal. I think that is the dishonesty and the lack of any mandate from the Canadian people.

I am now seeing what appears to be just as much dishonesty on the other side of this House. I sat for over a year on the standing committee on finance and economic affairs to discuss free trade, and I will not, because I have raised it in this House, go into all the arguments we had, but I want to make two or three of them very clear.

My colleague the member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Morin-Strom) and I argued as strongly and as best we could in that committee for months, literally, and argued as well on our trips to Washington, for a rejection of this comprehensive trade pact. We appealed in that committee time and again to some of the Liberal members who sat in that committee for support for the position we were putting forward.

We even had early on, one Tory member who agreed with us totally, but he left the committee at an early stage to take an appointment with the Workers’ Compensation Board. I will never forget his admonition of his own colleagues in Washington when we were having a debate on this that he did not support the concept of free trade. All they were doing at that point was opening up all the trade irritants and highlighting all the areas where there was dispute but, unfortunately, that was the only voice I heard speaking from that side and he was not there very long.

But what argument did we get from the Liberal members of that committee when we tried to get them to side with us early in saying: “This is not a good deal for Canada. This is a dangerous deal and you are going to live to regret it if you let these talks continue.” I can tell members what we got.

First: “You guys, you’re not living in the real world, you two New Democrats. We’ve simply got to conduct the talks. It would be irresponsible not to conduct the talks, but of course you don’t need to worry. Trust us.” It sounds a little bit like the Premier recently. “Trust us, because obviously we are not going to enter into any kind of deal that threatens the auto pact, that threatens the marketing boards, that threatens our culture, investment policies, a number of areas that were covered. You don’t need to worry and quit being so paranoid, almost, about the issue.”

It did not take too long, as we were winding down that committee and getting ready to issue our first reports, before, all of a sudden, we had reached the stage in the talks that were going on with Mr. Reisman and Mr. Murphy where it was obvious that the auto pact was on the table. It was obvious that there were going to be disruptions in some of the farm marketing policies. It was obvious that there were other things that we said we simply had to protect and that the Liberal members were saying had to be protected, albeit we should still enter into the talks on that committee.

When it became apparent that they could not do anything about these items being on the table, there was a little switch in tactics and we started getting: “Oh, but Ontario has the right to veto. Ontario can end these talks. Ontario has the right to say that what is under our jurisdiction just does not happen.” We started getting that line and we got that line all through the last election, but that was the next line.

As recently as the committee sessions we have had in the last two weeks -- Professor Peter Russell was one of the speakers but the one I found much more interesting was H. Scott Fairley, associate professor of constitutional law at the University of Ottawa. I will not attempt to tell members exactly what they said -- I did not always understand all of it, to be very honest -- but I can tell members what they were telling the committee fairly clearly. If we were pinning our hopes on an appeal over Ontario’s jurisdiction or Ontario’s right, that was an awfully dangerous road to go and they did not think we would succeed.

We had no less than three witnesses, and I think the transcripts of the testimony in the last two weeks will show very clearly that they did not think we were going to succeed. They outlined some of the real concerns and fears. I think it got through to a couple of Liberal members on the committee, even in the last week because, all of a sudden, I heard a new position from my friend the member for Guelph (Mr. Ferraro).

He used to be one of those who sided with Jimmy Taylor from the Tories, who is no longer with us, telling us how crazy we were to be opposing even the talks and how we were sure we had the protection because they would not put certain things on the table and he was one of the first to start arguing with us about Ontario’s right to deal with any particular area that infringed on Ontario’s jurisdiction. He heard what was coming from those witnesses before our committee and said, “Lookit, fellows, don’t be so upset, don’t really worry about it all, because we have six months after the finalization of the deal to get out of it.”

I would not trust this government to get out of it in six months if it was the last thing on earth. We see a fullback from the areas that we simply will not negotiate. They are negotiating, so it is no longer important. Then what infringes on Ontario’s jurisdiction, when it is obvious that that is going down the tube, is no longer important, now we have six months after the deal is signed.

I ask the members in this chamber to think for a minute. If we sign this deal, if it is ratified in Congress, if they get the approval of the provinces, and I think they are going to, and they start the process of adjusting for the kind of massive changes that will be involved, how much chance do members think we will have or what do they think the cost will be to pull out within that six-month period? It will be enormous.

If members do not think there is bargaining clout and if they do not think the Americans can come down on us like a ton of bricks and threaten us and bring countervail action against us if we try to break that kind of agreement within six months, if members do not believe that, they are nuts and they are not living in the real world.

I am simply saying it is a lousy argument, as far as I am concerned, that our next line of defence is, “We have six months to do something about this agreement.” I have never in my life been as disappointed in a Premier of Ontario as I have in this Premier. I am not going to go back through all of the quotes. My leader has done an excellent job on it and so have others in this House. But the Premier certainly made it clear that as regards the auto pact and other areas, it was no deal.

I think that was a major part of the success of the Liberal Party in the election. The Premier made that clear; he was hard and he was pointed on it. And what have we seen there? In this House we started getting first; “You know that is really federal jurisdiction. The feds have the treaty-making power and we cannot do much about it.” That is certainly not what he was saying during the election campaign.

We have had almost the same kind of approach now over Ontario’s jurisdiction, not willing to try any court challenges in advance. I suspect we will not see any challenges, period. The government knows it is asking a little bit much but, above all, trust us
-- just as it was during the election campaign.

1650

If I have to put the Premier of Ontario up against Brian Mulroney I am not sure who I would trust more or less. I will tell the members that right now. I have just reached that conclusion; it has taken the last few weeks. But as I watch the backoff of this party’s position on free trade, I am prepared to suggest that within three months we will probably either have almost a reversal in the position on that side of the House or at least there will be no real opposition any longer to this particular deal.

An hon. member: Five bucks.

Mr. Mackenzie: The member is darned right he has got $5 from me. Some of his colleagues would not take it up, but I will take it with the rest of them, too.

I think what is going on here in terms of the debate in this country is very much akin to a charge that was made by Sir John A. Macdonald, certainly not a socialist politician, who in the 1891 election, as I understand it, described free trade as “veiled treason.” I think that is exactly what has happened to our country.

Some people get upset. I heard some of the Tory members get upset at some of the name calling. I have heard an awful lot more of the doom and gloom boys and all the rest of it from them than I have from anybody else in this House but I do tell you that as far as I am concerned the threat to our country and our sovereignty does come very close to veiled treason.

I thought also that Mitchell Sharp made a very powerful point recently in the debate over this issue when he put the basic position of cultural nationalists succinctly. I think we should read the paragraph leading into it, because I think it is interesting.

“Mitchell Sharp, who led the fight of the continentalists against the economic nationalists led by Walter Gordon at the 1966 Liberal convention, is expressing strong opposition to the present free trade deal, an opposition not based on economics, but on cultural sovereignty. ‘Marginal economic gains from the Mulroney government’s free trade deal will be outweighed by the imminent Americanization of Canada,’ said Sharp who was Canada’s Finance minister from 1965 to 1968, and External Affairs minister from 1968 to 1971.”

His quote says: “‘Bear in mind that there is a price to be paid for that marginal improvement in standards of living. The price, in my judgement, is a progressive erosion of Canadian independence and identity that would come about not at once, but gradually and inevitably over a period of years.’ Sharp put the basic position of the cultural nationalists quite succinctly. The position is that it might cost a little more to be a Canadian than an American but it is worth the price.”

That is exactly why, when I say I am a little bit angry and uptight about this, I have such difficulty, not only with the position of my colleagues to the left whom I understand -- I should not say that; I do not understand, but they are very clear in their position -- or my colleagues across the way -- l do not know what their position really is -- and I see a backing off almost every week we sit in this House from their opposition heretofore to this deal. I do not see them willing to make it very clear to the Americans and very clear to the federal government that we are going to fight them every single step of the way if they try to impose this deal on Canada. It is because I feel we would be challenging that view of Canada.

I heard a lady speaking to a meeting in Orillia the other day. She came up to me and said, “Mr. Mackenzie, is it true that we might go out and buy our dresses $20 cheaper than what we are paying for them here in Canada?” I said, “It is possible.” She said, “But is it not also true that we would probably close down those factories that are making dresses here in Canada as a result?” I said, “That is likely true as well.” Then she said, “It is not worth it.”

We do not always get that message through: that there might be some things initially that would be cheaper, but not in the long run.

All through the year and a half that we had the hearings of that committee on the trade issue, time and time again we had outlined, as they have been through some of this debate, the areas of concern
-- textiles, shoes, electrical, and it went on and on. We were always told: “Trust us. Take this leap of faith. There are areas we are going to make gains in.” To this day, I am still looking for the gains.

I heard the leader of the third party make reference to the petrochemical industry in his own town of Sarnia. I would suggest to him that he go back to the Hansards of those debates a year ago on that select committee when we had before us some of the top officials of the petrochemical industry in Sarnia, along with the cement producers’ association. Those are the only two industries that I can remember telling us that they really would produce a lot of new jobs in this country or that they would be that much better off.

When we got to questioning the vice-president of one of the petrochemical companies in Sarnia, I think I asked the question specifically and it will show in those Hansards, “What can you give us in the way of actual numbers of new jobs?” They are already selling much of their production in the United States and they will have this access to this US market, and what figure did he come up with finally? If you look at the Hansards you will find he finally said, “Probably 100 jobs.”

I am not trying to hold him to that. He may double or triple that, he may not hit the 100, but he made one other comment at the same time that was, I thought, significant. “Of course, you understand that the investment in the capital and new technology needed for those 100 jobs will be somewhere between $60 million and $80 million.” I want to tell you I am no industrialist at all, but for $60 million or $80 million I suspect I could produce more than 100 jobs.

I want to go to the cement industry, because it was one of the other success stories that came before our committee of this Legislature. They told us that they already ship -- and I did not realize this -- more than half their cement production into the US and that they could ship so much more in with this kind of an agreement. We went after them exactly the same way, and we asked representatives of the four major cement producers in Ontario, “What are you telling us you might do in the way of production of new jobs?”

Do you know, all of a sudden they said: “We didn’t say there would be any new jobs, but you want to understand we are doing the business we are doing now and shipping the production we are shipping now into the US, based on working only nine months of the year. What we could do is guarantee 12 months of work in the year for our workers, and there are about 3,000 of them.”

That is pretty fantastic. I have no difficulty with an extra three months of work for those 3,000 workers in the cement production field, but it sure does not sound like new jobs to me.

I want to raise one other point that has bothered me no end. Early on in this debate, one of the big arguments -- and it still is to this day but you will notice that it has fallen off a bit -- was the access to this tremendous, huge US market and what it would do for Canadians and Canadian companies.

I went to the Royal Connaught Hotel in Hamilton and listened to the submissions made both by the unions and by the steel producers to the cabinet committee that toured around the province. Then I went, as some other members of this House did, to the breakfast that the forestry industry had over at the Sutton Place Hotel. You know, I got the same message at both places, a little more forcefully stated by the steel producers than by the forestry industry, but exactly the same message.

In the steel industry’s case, they were not going to be so foolish as to try to exceed the percentage of their production that they are already sending south of the border. No, no, that would only rouse the US protectionist feeling, no matter what, and they were having hard times in their industry in any event, but what they wanted this agreement for, almost the sole reason, was to guarantee their current market share, to guarantee the status quo. When one of the reporters, I think it was Mike Murphy of CHCH-TV, cornered the head of Dofasco outside in the scrum after he had presented a brief to those hearings, he said, “Hey, are you telling us that what you are really trying to protect is just the status quo?” the answer was “Yes.”

Those of you who sat down at that breakfast with the forest industry people in the Sutton Place heard much the same kind of pitch. It was not that there is a fantastic new access to this huge US market and all of this gain for this country of ours, it was simply that they, fearing the protectionist sentiment, wanted to protect the status quo.

Why, in God’s name, are we entering into this agreement that is supposed to have all of this benefit of this huge US market if our major industrial exporters are already fighting only to keep things where they are? Let me tell you, if we cannot do that, as we have done up until now in a tough situation with the kind of protectionist sentiment that is there, then we probably do not deserve to survive as a nation.

I happen to have more faith in Canada; I think we can. Just as we beat them back once on the steel issue, we can do it again. Sure, it is tough and difficult, but we have not put the marketplace automatically in charge. We have not sold the store before we ever started fighting or trying to make it a viable option in this country of ours. I think that is absolutely nuts. Members should stop and think for a minute.

1700

Other devastating testimony -- and I am going back a year, I know, but I think the example is useful -- was from the trucking industry that was before us. It is another thing that makes me so dissatisfied with the recent performance of this government, the bills that it has reintroduced which I think is one of the steps towards the reversal I am talking about that I can see coming across the way in this House.

The trucking industry was before us, the vice-presidents of three of the major companies. One of them was CP Trucking. They outlined what had happened in the United States with deregulation. In a nutshell, the prices went down and everybody loved the lower prices of shipped goods.

The shake-out occurred: 56 per cent or 57 per cent of all the unionized truck drivers disappeared, mostly Teamsters, but whatever union. The small companies were gobbled up. The medium-sized companies were gobbled up. One of the questions we asked, which I think is also on the record in that committee, was, “What happened in terms of environmental safeguards and health and safety safeguards in the trucking industry?” They told us, if I remember the quote properly, or close to it, that it was most noticeable in the medium-sized companies, which cut back on these particular areas as they tried to compete and stay in business, but even then many of them could not do so.

Within three years of the US move to deregulate, they had shaken down -- I have forgotten; it was hundreds and hundreds. There were something like a third or half of the trucking companies left. Fifty-seven per cent of the unionized drivers were gone. They had shaken down on the standards. He said: “What was the end result? All of a sudden the prices are back up.” We asked him specifically where they are now. “About where they were when we started this deregulation three or three and half years ago. They are probably higher than that now.”

The Canadian trucking industry told us very clearly that if we are going to go the free trade route -- and it opposed it as strongly as it could in the presentations -- “You had better give us deregulation. That way a few of the bigger ones may survive in this country.” They did not say “the bigger ones,” but that is certainly what they meant.

They gave us the reasons, and the reasoning was sound. They do not have the infrastructure to try to ship, store and warehouse when they are trying to reach US markets 1,000 and 1,500 miles from the border. The US companies, sitting right on our border, have 100 miles to supply 90-some per cent of the population of Canada and do not need the additional facilities. It is easier for them to move into the market. That is why the trucking industry made the argument to us that it would have great difficulty surviving. There are certainly thousands involved in the trucking industry. But they also told us, “Move and move fast on deregulation.’’

What did we see the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton) do in this House within the last week? He has brought back in bills that we thought had finally been killed, at least for the time being or at least until after we know if we have a free trade deal. I am sorry if I sound a little suspicious.

Interjection.

Mr. Mackenzie: “Do not be paranoid,” somebody said over there. To me, it is just one more step in a clear move towards accepting that we are going to have this kind of an agreement in this country and moving exactly the way they did in the US.

I want to make another observation that I think all members should think about. Another thing that struck me as being significant, scary and to the point in the testimony of the trucking executives before our committee was that the vice-president said he had talked to -- I forget how many -- companies that he did business with in Ontario that were branch plants. He said, “You know, as many as 500 of the managers of these plants have told me they have the production capacity in the US and it is difficult to foresee their keeping the branch open longer than one, two or three years, if that long, if we end up with a pretty open border in this country.” In other words, the real threat to the branch plants that we have stated all along is there -- in spades.

But I ask members to think of something else. With a total marketplace economy, with market-place control, with the marketplace deciding not what is best for the country, without rules that give us the right to regional development or anything else, what happens if some Canadians -- and I think there will be some -- are competent, efficient and innovative enough to survive and start building an industry that, all of a sudden, is accessing and not just trying to keep the status quo, as we were told by steel or forestry, which will probably always be two of our biggest exporters?

Do members think for a minute that without the rules -- this is one of the things we have done in the current deal we have; the takeover and investment rules are almost nonexistent. We have completed what we started by dismantling the Foreign Investment Review Agency. Do members think some of the smart American traders and some of the big money down there will not zero in very quickly on those Canadian companies that are successful enough to penetrate that market? How long do you think it will be before we will have that kind of buyout?

Foreign investment was a threat already in this country and has been for years. This opens the door to it even more. In particular, they will go after those that are success stories. I am simply saying this is another thing people should think about and think about very clearly before they enter into a deal such as this.

It really strikes me that there is something wrong with governments -- obviously the move by the Prime Minister of this country was the key one, as I said, characterized as far as I am concerned by some dishonesty -- that would enter into an agreement where even the deal we have got is such a bad one.

I read a brief recently that I thought was right on, one of those presented to the cabinet committee. On one page, it goes as follows:

“The deal is, quite frankly, unbelievable. The worst fears of those who have opposed the idea of a free trade agreement with the United States have been realized. Brian Mulroney’s Conservatives have signed a deal with the Reagan administration that gives the United States most of what it wanted in a deal and Canada virtually none of what it wanted.

“The United States has won a continental energy policy, something which it has been looking for ever since the energy crisis of the early 1970s. In effect, it has won a guarantee that no future government will ever have the temerity to implement a made-in-Canada energy policy.”

The members should stop and think for a minute. This may be the single most serious flaw in this agreement, although there are any number of them. What have we used more often in terms of regional incentives and development to try to protect jobs or to move into an area in this country where we are having problems? One of the really big tools has been the price and availability of energy, whether it is gas, oil or hydro. We are now saying that we can no longer sell or use to develop in this country -- it is very clear in the agreement -- our energy resources at any kind of special price. We have to let anything they contract for that we are willing to sell to them go to the US at the lowest price we are selling for here in Canada. It does not make any sense whatsoever.

When we talk about the threat to the sovereignty of our country, it is issues like this that remove our ability as a nation to move in any effective way in terms of the Canadian identity -- if I dare use that word; some people seem to think it is almost a dirty word -- the rights of Canadians and the rights of Canada to be an independent nation with its own policies, whether they are economic, regional or international. When you lose the ability to harness your resources and your money, such as you can do when you are a country that is blessed with a lot of energy, when you give that up, you really are giving up the store.

Under this agreement, Canada gives up the right to use minimum export or import prices, article 902; export taxes, article 903; or export quotas as instruments of energy policy. Is there any question of what we are doing?

Canadians will be subsidizing US consumers by selling off more accessible resources of nonrenewable hydrocarbons at prices dictated by market conditions in the United States and later replacing them with more expensive resources from Canada’s frontiers. Because energy prices will be determined by supply and demand in the continental market, Canadians will no longer be able to benefit from domestic energy prices that differ from those of the US. Canadian industries would then find it even harder to survive as our climate and long haulage distances put them at a cost disadvantage of about 20 per cent on average when compared to their US competitors.

This section infringes on our sovereignty. I say that directly and without hesitation. Under the free trade agreement, the US has almost totally unrestricted access to Canadian energy resources -- oil, natural gas and hydro -- on the same terms and conditions as Canadians. This means we cannot charge Canadians less than the US for our resources and we cannot refuse to supply the US even in cases of a resource shortage or an emergency crisis. The US has won a continental energy policy, something that it has been looking for ever since the energy crisis of the early 1970s. In effect, it has won a guarantee that no future government will ever have the temerity to implement a made-in-Canada energy policy. This removes the right of a Canadian government to pursue energy policies which favour Canadians over Americans. So we are already in.

1710

Forget the multicultural heritage or background of our nation and our peoples. Jump into the melting pot approach in the US and jump in effect into being little more than the 51st state of the United States. We also have not won in this agreement the right to put aside countervail. To me, while I see the feeling in energy and while I see that as a direct threat to the sovereignty of our nation, probably the biggest and most stupid part of the agreement is that we have not obtained the right to deal with their countervail actions. We cannot stop them if they still do not like a deal even after we have signed this agreement, and we could not do anything in terms of the current omnibus bill going through the US House.

Nothing in the agreement prevents US antidumping or countervail measures such as were threatened in this softwood lumber deal. The dispute settlement mechanism will not guarantee Canadian access. Any appeal will be limited to matters of process, not substance. Whether an American countervail or antidumping duty is fair to Canadian products or not will never be the issue. Canada failed to get an exemption from US countervailing duty and antidumping legislation. Indeed, it is now clear that the deal will exempt Canada even from future US trade restrictions. In other words, we have not even won an exemption from the omnibus trade bill that is making its way through the US Congress, the bill that free trade advocates have been holding out over our heads as an overriding reason for the free trade deal.

First off, we are finding from our major exporters that we are not going to get access to this huge US market they talk about. Then we find out in the agreement that will be signed on January 2 that we do not even get out from under all this protectionist threat in the current major omnibus bill going through the US Congress. My God, how stupid are we in this country and how stupid are our governments?

American laws which have hurt Canadian industries like softwood lumber or Atlantic groundfish are untouched. These trade laws will continue to apply and will continue to harass Canadian producers. Everyone admits that Canada will suffer severe job losses because of this agreement and that women and minorities will be particularly hard hit. In return for this high cost in lost jobs, Canadian negotiators have secured a review panel that will judge after the fact whether the Americans have applied their bad trade laws correctly, but can do nothing about them. There is nothing there that should give us any cause for any hope or any feeling of security. It is simply a deal that cannot and must not be allowed to proceed.

I would like to wind up my remarks where I started. I know what the Tories are doing. I cannot understand it. I am sure Sir John. A. Macdonald would be rolling over in his grave, but I guess if I look at the fact that the Tories believe in the marketplace ruling, then that is the explanation because that is exactly what happens. Not what is good for Canada, not what is good for regional problems, but the marketplace rules totally. I think they inherited that from Mr. Mulroney’s concept of business as an American steel flunkey.

Lest there are any good feelings across the way, I do not know how these people explain first their backing off from “we are not going to have any deal,” as I said earlier, if it infringes on the auto pact, if it infringes on some of the marketing boards, if it infringes on our right to regional incentives or really ruins our ability in terms of foreign investment. Then when we find that is not happening, when we find that is all part of the package, then the Liberals at the committee level -- and we have seen it in this House level as well -- all of a sudden move to their backup position that we will now have the right to stop it because of anything that infringes on Ontario’s jurisdiction.

When it starts to become obvious that that may not be a viable challenge either, that that may not be good enough, I do not know what the Premier will say, other than nothing, as he did in answer to questions today. I can tell the House what the member for Guelph was saying in the committee: “Oh well, so we didn’t succeed in getting these things off the table. Oh well, so maybe we don’t have the right to stop the deal because it infringes on Ontario’s jurisdiction. We have six months when we can cancel the deal.” My God, is that ever negotiating from strength.

I want to tell the members that I have become completely disillusioned with the position this government takes, because it is all talk and no action. That is exactly what our Premier has been doing as well. I will wind up by simply saying that I have reached the stage -- and I do not like it and I am not happy even to say it, to be honest -- that if I have to trust either Brian Mulroney or the Premier, I do not who I would choose.

This deal is simply a bad one and it has to be stopped. I want to end by saying that if this government does not find the internal fortitude and the guts and the energy to say, “This thing stops and it stops now,” then it has done a disservice to the voters who were expecting more, it has done a disservice to this province and it has done a disservice to Canadians from coast to coast. I appeal to the government to do something now that is more than just the chatter we have had to this point.

Mr. Cousens: I want to take part in this debate. It is a debate that has great significance and probably will be the most important debate that takes place in this parliament. It is unfortunate that we have to be here at this time, when we could have risen last Thursday. The member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) could be taking Christmas cheer around rather than giving the kind of speech he just had to give.

I have to tell you, Madam Speaker, that this House takes very seriously its responsibility in dealing with important issues for our province, important issues that affect every person, not only in the province but also in this country. Therefore, in that light, when the government party came through with its resolution that condemned the free trade agreement in such a wholehearted way and expected there would be a token speech from each of the three parties and then this whole issue could be set aside and we would have dealt with it, that is wrong.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): Order. The member for Markham has the floor. Would you please let him continue.

Mr. Cousens: I am concerned and I think it should go on the record that at least the member for Markham would rather be in Markham than at Queen’s Park. I am sure many other honourable members would prefer to be elsewhere.

I find it surprising that we are here debating the free trade agreement when the federal House has adjourned for the Christmas holiday without even having to pass the resolution supporting free trade, in spite of the fact that the Prime Minister --

Mr. Harris: All three parties agreed.

Mr. Cousens: All three parties agreed they could put it on the very back burner for the time being. Come January 2, the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of the United States, Mr. Reagan, will be signing the agreement, in spite of the fact that the federal House has not ratified the agreement. I find that quite surprising and I find it all the more so when the Peterson government seems to think we are just going to casually approve something with a token speech from each of the three parties.

This is probably the most important debate that will take place and I, for one, am pleased to be part of the debate but most unhappy at the timing of it. The timing should be at a future time. If the Premier and his advisers were to come forward with a resolution that said to the members of this House: “We are referring the issue of the free trade agreement to a committee of the Legislature. That committee is going to look at it. They will have hearings and then they will make presentations. They will hear them and they will come back to the House and then we can vote on it,” then there could be further debate and it would be more enlightened.

1720

No. Instead, we are faced with this abysmal resolution. I disagree with the resolution and I disagree more with the way in which it has been presented to this House. So, as we proceed, it is also against the intentions of the speech that was given by the Premier on November 4 to the Canadian Club and the Empire Club. I have his speech and I am going to make a number of references to his speech. He said:

“Canadians from coast to coast and from every walk of life have not only the right but the responsibility to debate this deal in the fullest detail.” I think that is why our party is concerned that we continue to talk this issue through and understand its ramifications and understand how its impact is going to affect the life of Ontario and of all Canadians.

I then go on to one other point the Premier made in his speech. I am concerned with one aspect of this that came up in the Legislature this afternoon. He said, people “have the right to demand that the debate be carried out without impugning the motives or questioning the good faith of any province, region or individual.”

I would ask the Premier to talk to his own Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley), who in this afternoon’s question period said the reason the Maritimes bought the deal is because they were bought off by the frigates.

I think that is part of the lack of conciliation going on. We should not judge anyone’s opinion. We should not say, “Hey, because you disagree with me, you’re not a good person.” That is the kind of attitude that is coming through from the government. I think we have to be open in our debate, conciliatory, and find a middle road that accepts that the deal is not perfect. I do not think it is perfect but I think it is better than no deal and I think it leads to a better future for this country and for this province by having that agreement than if we did not have it.

So as we address the concerns of the free trade agreement, I think we have to face up to a number of the statements that have been made by the Premier and by the intentions behind them, reiterating the fact that there is still time for this government to take back this resolution and bring out resolution 9, which will allow the government to come forward with another statement that can defer this to a committee for proper debate.

I want to refer at some length to the speech that was given by the Premier, previously referred to, on November 4. I would like to take that speech issue by issue. I know I will not touch upon all of them, but there are a number of points the Premier made in his speech and I would like to take them seriatim, one at a time.

By the way, I would like to welcome the Premier into the House. He was here for question period, but to be present for this debate is something we hoped we would see. We hope he will continue to be here throughout the duration.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I came for the top speaker of the Tories.

Mr. Cousens: I am most honoured. I have great respect for the Premier except for his position on free trade.

In his remarks, the Premier said the free trade agreement does not make access to the United States market “appreciably more secure.” “Appreciably” can be defined and “secure” can be defined, yet what he is really trying to say is that there are no guarantees of improved trade possibilities for Ontario business people because of the free trade agreement.

I have a number of comments I would like to make on that. I believe the US market is more secure for at least the following reasons. The first has to do with changes to the United States antidumping and countervailing duty laws under the free trade agreement. When it does enter into effect, it will not apply to Canada unless Canada is specifically mentioned in the legislation. That is in article 1902.

In other words, when future trade debates take place between our country and the United States, we are going to know when there is going to be some countervailing activity within the United States, and unless it has a specific mention, we are protected from it. This measure ensures that any future US trade law changes will provide special consideration for Canada. That is the first point I make.

Based on the Premier’s statement in his speech that the free trade agreement does not make access to the United States market appreciably more secure, I make this second point: The US trade officials will be required to enter into prior consultation with Canadian trade officials where Canada is named in trade legislation. That is in article 1902 of the agreement. This prior consultation will enable Canadians to lobby for exemption from legislation and to influence the type of legislation that is drafted. They do not have to do that now but they will have to do it after the agreement is signed.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Crawl down there on bended knee and beg for their forgiveness and exemption.

Mr. Cousens: No, it is within the agreement and we would have this agreement. We probably do not have three wise men to take a trip to Washington from the Liberal Party, but we could find some good Canadians who are going to be in a position to fight for Canadian trade.

The third point is that the dispute panel may issue declaratory opinions. A declaratory opinion is a charge that is made on countervailing or antidumping laws having to do with their consistency with the General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade antidumping code and subsidies code, and with the objects and purpose of the free trade agreement.

The purpose of these opinions is to exercise moral suasion and check protectionism. There will be a chance before any changes are made within American law for Canadians to react to it. There will be an opportunity to air it, to put it out in the media and to have our negotiators and their negotiators sit down and discuss it. These declaratory opinions will ensure an openness before some action is taken. There is nothing worse in a trade relationship, as we have with the United States, than to have surprises, and we have had a few bad surprises. Let us have this kind of openness and airing and explanation of what is being planned so that does not happen.

A fourth point that comes out, where the Premier was saying it does not make access to the US market more secure, is the fact that the dispute panel may recommend modifications to trade-law changes. Such recommendations would trigger consultation for a maximum of 90 days. The purpose of this consultation period would be for trade officials to try to resolve the irritant in the trade-law changes. The members of the panel would offer expert advice on how the offending changes could be modified. That is outlined in article 1903. The dispute panel has value. The dispute panel will help to provide that opportunity for alternative views. It will be able to make recommendations.

Another point in this agreement -- the Premier says the free trade agreement does not make access to the US market appreciably more secure -- is the fact that Canada will be able to have the dispute panel review any US countervail or antidumping determinations to determine if a US investigating authority has made a decision not in accordance with its law. That would include statutes, legislative history, regulations, administrative practice and judicial precedents. “The decision of a panel under this article shall be binding on the parties with respect to the particular matter between the parties that is before the panel.”

The review panel process will ensure that the economic and legal standards applicable to countervailing and antidumping actions were fairly applied. This process would reduce the extent to which legal and/or administrative decisions in these areas could be unduly influenced by protectionist pressures. The existence of an impartial binational panel would discourage the United States International Trade Commission and the Department of Commerce from ceding to protectionism because of the likelihood that countervail and antidumping decisions would be reassessed by a higher body.

Moreover, Canada could provide notice of its intention to appeal a negative US trade-law ruling as soon as the preliminary ruling was made. This would put pressure on US authorities to apply laws in a fair manner, providing a full assessment of the arguments submitted by both parties. We want greater access to the US market and we will have it through this kind of review.

Under the global track of the safeguard provisions, the US emergency relief actions to deal with serious injury from imports will not apply to Canada except where Canadian exports are substantial. In other words, we will be in a position to review any changes that are taken to Canadian trading practices. On the larger ones it will take a larger discussion, but on the smaller ones there will be a way in which we can contribute to discussion and dialogue on any changes that are made to imports; that is, Canada will not be sideswiped by the United States. This measure will make Canadian exports more secure, simply because it will reduce the scope of application of US safeguard actions.

1730

Another point I would like to dispute with the Premier is that he is saying the free trade agreement will not make access to the US more secure. The fact is, under the terms of the Canada-US trade commission established to supervise the implementation of the agreement, each party shall provide written notice to the other party of any procedure or practice that it considers might materially affect the operation of the agreement. Furthermore, parties to the agreement shall be able to request bilateral consultations and/or the meeting of the commission to resolve disputes. The commission will also be empowered to call on technical advisers and to refer disputes to binding arbitration.

The combination of the above measures will help resolve disputes before they are translated into legal actions and will thereby contain and reduce the threats to Canada’s access to the US market. When we talk about access to the US market, the Canadian energy market is an important consideration. Both Canada and the United States have agreed to prohibit restrictions on the import or export of energy, under paragraph 1 of Article 902. This will secure Canadian access to the US market, access which is otherwise threatened when energy surpluses exist in the United States. The above amendments to the legal and administrative procedures governing the development and application of US trade law would make access to the US market appreciably more secure.

The Premier’s statements discount the progress that has been made in this area and imply that no deal is better than the proposed one. I have grave problems with that whole premise, that no deal is better than what we have proposed, because unless we begin to realize that our major trading partner is the United States of America, and unless we have a bilateral trade agreement that is going to open the door between their country and ours for trading and understanding of trade to allow for a reduction in consumer prices, to allow benefits to both sides, to realize that in fact Canadians have a great investment in the United States right now -- and I will come back to the amount of investment they have in Canada and the increased proportional investment that has taken place in the United States -- the fact of the matter is, we have an opportunity to increase trade between our country and their country. We believe that there are benefits for all of the country.

The Premier, in his position, is indicating that it is going to turn away trade from Canada. He indicates that this trade that is proposed in the FTA is something that is going to give the United States a bigger advantage than it is going to give to Ontario or to Canada. What he is trying to do is hold Canada up in a position where he is saying Canada better not try to do it. I think there is a sense in which this government has failed to realize that every other country in this world has established a trade agreement with other countries, except for the United States and Japan.

The United States and Japan can continue to operate independently of other countries, largely. They have agreements under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, but the fact is, the Soviet bloc has its own trading system, the European common market has its trading pact, as do the East Asian countries, the African countries and the Latin American countries. If Canada does not establish a strong trading relationship with the United States, we can close the doors for future growth and future development. In fact, we might cause our own social structure to go down and down because we cannot afford it, because we have not the machinery to drive it, we do not have the income to drive it, we do not have the opportunity to trade outside our country. We need that opportunity to trade outside this province. We need it to trade outside this country.

I believe this agreement establishes a more secure relationship between our country and the United States of America. In doing so, it does not thrill me that some people say we are doing that and want to close the doors to trade with Britain or the Far East or other countries. Far from it, but let us begin to take advantage of the trade opportunities with our major trading partner, the United States of America.

A quote I would like to take from the speech of the Premier is when he says, “The proposed dispute settlement mechanism...would not have prevented the Commerce department decision that led to a 15 per cent surcharge on Canadian softwood lumber.”

This statement is at least presumptuous: “The weight of legal opinion in both the United States and Canada is now of the view that Canada could have won the countervailing duty decision had the complaint been appealed under the existing US trade laws. Moreover, the reason the 15 per cent surcharge was applied was because the Canadian government conceded defeat and decided to pursue a negotiated settlement, not because a final, negative decision was imminent.”

The next point that was made in the Premier’s speech was as follows. He said: “Canadian industry and workers would be asked to go through tremendous dislocation in order to become more competitive in the US market. But without a meaningful guarantee of secure access, the more successful they are in reducing the costs of production, the more vulnerable they would be to US protectionist action.”

I believe this to be a distortion of what has really happened. First, the amount of dislocation that would occur as a result of the elimination of the remaining bilateral tariffs would be a very, very small amount relative to the amount of adjustment which normally occurs every year in the labour market.

The Economic Council of Canada noted in its 1987 annual report that in a typical year between four million and five million people, or one fifth of the working population, lose or leave their jobs. The report estimated, in contrast, that over an eight-year period following the adoption of bilateral free trade, a mere 180,000 jobs would be lost while over 530,000 jobs would be created. Thus, the labour adjustment attributable to bilateral free trade would be almost insignificant relative to the normal amount of adjustment occurring in the economy.

Furthermore, in dispute to the Premier’s statement, the multilateral trade liberalization with the Far East and Europe, which he advocates would pose a far greater adjustment cost than the bilateral agreement, is a concern.

The Premier also wants greater protection for domestic automobile producers and textile workers, at the same time as he claims to favour trade liberalization with the Far East and continued protectionism from European wines, at the same time as he wants more trade with Europe.

The claim that Canadian exporters will be more susceptible to US trade actions if we become more competitive is unlikely. US trade actions dealing with antidumping and countervailing require proof that Canadian imports into the US market are either dumped or that they have benefited from trade-distorting Canadian subsidiaries. Low price alone is not sufficient cause for the application of new antidumping or countervailing duties.

Achieving more competitive manufacturing is also essential to increasing export overseas, a goal all participants in the debate want.

I believe that what the Premier was asking for here is to get people to agree with something that is not necessarily true. The evidence is in, at least from those who have given information that we have. I know that the Premier has access to some of the studies that have been made. One was referred to by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter). It was not tabled last week.

There are some legal opinions and other opinions, but the point is that we in Canada will not lose our competitive edge, that we in Canada will be able to have more jobs for more Canadians because of the free trade agreement.

The Premier also went on to say that the federal government eliminated the national energy policy and the Foreign Investment Review Agency without even asking the United States for a single concession in return.

The national energy policy was eliminated because it represented bad economic policy, which hurt the energy-producing regions of Canada and retarded the adjustment of energy users towards greater efficiency. The Foreign Investment Review Agency was replaced with Investment Canada because of the recognition that Canada needs to encourage rather than discourage investment in Canada.

1740

The comments of the Premier beg the question of what concession he negotiated with the United States before opening up the Ontario investment banking industry to 100 per cent foreign ownership. Indeed, the circumstances surrounding the decision of the Premier’s government to open up Ontario’s investment banking industry to foreign ownership reflects the basic economic imperative behind trade liberalization, i.e., nations must embrace economic change to maintain their economic affluence.

Canada’s ability to pursue an independent energy policy, according to the Premier, was given away in the free trade agreement. Canada has traded off its ability to discriminate in energy pricing between domestic and foreign customers and its ability to reduce arbitrarily non-oil energy export levels in return for an end to US tariffs or quotas on Canadian energy exports, an end to US restrictions on the importation of enriched uranium and a US undertaking to allow western Canada to purchase up to 50,000 barrels per day of Alaskan oil.

Canada, in this agreement, maintains the right to control the exploration, development and production of energy. The principle of providing proportional access for oil supplies in periods of short supply has already been adopted in the Canadian energy policy.

The provisions of the agreement governing energy will help secure better US market access, because Canadian producers will be able to enter a more stable supply contract with US utilities. Who knows? Maybe Ontario could start selling some of its surplus energy. Maybe Quebec could, even more so. Maybe Newfoundland could. There is an opportunity for trade in energy that has not existed before.

I am surprised as well that the Premier said in his speech that when Canadian tariffs are higher than US tariffs, Canada would bear the brunt of the adjustment burden, while the US would be the big winner. One has to question that, when one starts to look at some of the benefits that are going to come out of free trade. The consumer is going to be the winner in the free trade agreement in Canada.

Mr. Haggerty: You don’t believe that, now. Come on.

Mr. Cousens: I believe that immensely. I believe that is why we are here, to help protect the consumers who, three or four Christmases from now, when they are out doing their shopping, instead of having the feeling that inflation has not existed, are going to see a better price for the product.

That is what it is all about. Hopefully, our consumers will see that far more quickly than we have seen the way inflation goes: government spending goes up, inflation goes up, and the loser in the final analysis is the small buyer, the small purchaser.

In 1986, duty on US goods cost Canadians an extra $2.1 billion, or $80 for every man, woman and child. Consumers may save as much as $8,000 on the construction and furnishing of a new home because of the advantages to them of the free trade agreement. That is money.

If the members look at the way the costs of homes are going up, starting a new home, and the program the government has introduced --

Mr. Black: Where did you get this $8,000 figure? Come on, where did you get that?

Mr. Cousens: It will take us a little while to explain it.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We want to know the author of this.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member will address his comments through the chair and ignore the interjections.

Mr. Cousens: It is hard to ignore the interjections, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cousens: The government is introducing a new home purchase plan, which it said it would during the election campaign, of $10,000 per home, $1,000 per year, which has not been brought in.

The fact is that there are so many aspects in the construction of a home that are imported that we can see there will be a reduction in the cost of constructing and furnishing a home of about $8,000.

The Economic Council of Canada has predicted a decline in the consumer price index which could add $700 to $1,000 in purchasing power for the average Canadian worker. That is the Economic Council of Canada. The duty reduction will begin on all goods on January 1, 1989. Canadian-US duties will be phased in over a period of 10 years, so over that time every one of us will begin to benefit by lower prices in the United States.

The timetable for the consumer benefits, which the Premier in his speech was not able to give any credibility to or any credit to, has to do with the different kinds of products. The fact is that group A products, as defined by the free trade agreement, will have all their duties wiped out -- it is only 15 per cent -- effective January 1, 1989. The fact is that for computer equipment, fish products, whisky, most forms of leather, skis, skates, motorcycles, furs and fur coats, that will become in effect on January 1, 1989.

A reduction of 20 per cent will take place on group B products, and group B products have approximately 35 per cent of all their goods subject to duty. Those are such things we import from the United States as furniture, paint, stationery, most paper products and communications equipment. Those products will have a 20 per cent reduction as of January 1, 1989. Then those products, by January 1, 1992, will be duty free.

For group C products, which is another major group of imported goods that we take in from the United States, 50 per cent of all the value of these products is subject to duty: textiles, home appliances, most food products, drugs and cosmetics, a wide range of manufactured goods. As of January 1, 1989, there will be a 10 per cent reduction in the importation costs of those products and then duty on those products will be phased out over a period of 10 years at an amount of 10 per cent a year, so in five years, textiles, home appliances, home food products, drugs and cosmetics will be cheaper for Canadians to buy.

A cornerstone of the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States is the elimination of tariffs. That is going to mean benefit for all Canadians. How can they say it is not good? First of all --

Mr. South: Where will the government get the money when you reduce the tariff?

Mr. Cousens: I will spend some time answering that question.

The first thing is that imported goods will cost less once the duties are eliminated. It is where tariffs are highest on clothing, domestic appliances, farm products, furniture and a wide range of manufactured goods that price changes will be most substantial.

Here are a few examples. In 1986, in Canada, we imported 16,329 overcoats from the United States and paid $356,000 in duty or approximately $22 per coat. That will be eliminated. A sofa in Canada that sells for $750 would be reduced to $670 under a free trade agreement. The retail price of sports and recreational equipment would be reduced by eight per cent. On three million square metres of carpeting and rugs from the United States last year, consumers paid more than $6 million in duty. This means savings of $300 or more for wall-to-wall carpeting on an average home. The consumer will benefit by the free trade agreement.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Yes, and everyone will lose his job. Why do you think tariffs are there?

Mr. Cousens: If the member believes they are going to lose their jobs, he should go back to some of the previous forecasts of the Economic Council of Canada. They have indicated there will not be a significant decrease in jobs.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Did the Prime Minister’s Office cover the other side of this?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Did the PMO cover the other side of this in the speech?

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cousens: I do not know what the members are talking about. The first thing we have made a point of, and we must continue to remind all Canadians of it, is that there are benefits to them by having the elimination of tariffs, so that when they go to purchase things, when they go to furnish their home, they will be the beneficiaries. That has not been said by the Premier or his government.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Why do you think tariffs are there? The workers will lose their jobs.

Mr. Cousens: It has not been said by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology either. His committee has been out around the province getting all kinds of information and he has not come back to the House and reported on it. All he is doing is giving a biased report, selective information.

1750

Prices of Canadian goods will also drop to compete with the less expensive American products. As the selling price of imported goods declines, Canadian manufacturers and retailers will have to lower their prices to remain competitive. Lower prices mean a lower consumer price index, and as goods become less expensive the consumer will have more spending power.

Here are a few examples of that. Percentage-wise, low-income earners will benefit the most. They spend the same amount as the rest of us on their base products, but they will benefit because then they can go out and make those purchases of Canadian products and not have to pay --

Mr. Philip: Why does the Consumers’ Association of Canada not endorse free trade, if it is so great for the consumers?

Mr. Cousens: You will have your chance to participate in this debate, I am sure, before we are finished.

Young consumers purchasing larger items, such as cars and homes, stand to gain more. For instance, a couple purchasing a new home could save the amount that I mentioned earlier, because it affects their furniture, it affects the implements in the house, it affects everything.

Senior citizens who rely on a fixed income will also see an improvement in their purchasing power from price reductions in a wide range of consumer products. Based on a lower consumer price index, buying power for a consumer earning $23,000 a year could increase by $700 to $1,000 per year.

I am convinced that increased competition will spur producers on both sides of the border to improve the quality of their goods but, at the same time, to reduce their prices. Canadian producers will have access to the larger American market. Production costs will fall as they sell more goods to US consumers. More competition will encourage producers on both sides of the border to improve quality. Consumers can expect lower prices from production savings, higher-quality goods and a greater variety of goods.

I do not think there is any doubt that what we are going to see through the changes of the free trade agreement is that the Canadian consumer is going to be the beneficiary, and maybe that has been missed. At least, it was in the Premier’s speech on November 4.

One of the other points the Premier made was that the changes affecting the auto pact would leave the automobile industry “open to multinationals to decide what is best for the Canadian industry.” One wonders what the Premier is really trying to say there. Is he really saying that our whole industry is going to be eroded, that there is just going to be a significant fallthrough, that our automotive industry is just going to deteriorate? I would like to come back and consider just what that statement means.

He says it will leave the automobile industry “open to multinationals to decide what is best for the Canadian industry.” I wonder if he really believes that statement. Production decisions are based on the economic competitiveness of domestic production facilities, and since the auto pact was implemented, Canadian value added in manufacturing as a percentage of the value added of domestic sales has been well above the 60 per cent safeguard level prescribed in the auto pact. Recently the Canadian value added ratio has been around 78 per cent.

Moreover, the fact that wage and benefit costs for Canadian auto workers are substantially below US levels suggests that there is no economic rationale for reduced auto production levels in Canada. The elimination of tariffs on tires and replacement parts will not hurt Canadian sovereignty but rather will increase competition for auto parts makers and lower retail prices.

The interest of Canadian consumers is not served by protective tariffs, and tariff and nontariff barriers to trade do not increase sovereignty. Indeed, it can be argued that bilateral tariff elimination increases the sovereignty of Canadian producers to produce and market goods and services with fewer foreign constraints. This reflects the principle of reciprocity that underlies trade agreements, agreements which must benefit both sides to be sustainable.

I am concerned as well with the statement that the Premier has made and that has been made by a number of speakers who are on the other side of the issue. Certainly members of the opposition say that the auto pact has been gutted, as if -- a quote from the Premier -- “The federal government gave away the option of extending auto pact status to offshore companies.”

Let us just think of what the auto pact is all about. First of all, if anyone thinks that we could have negotiated the auto pact just on its own merits and said, “We want to come back and look at it and make some changes to it,” it could not have happened. It had to be part of a larger agreement, part of a larger negotiation. The whole auto pact becomes something that is part of the Ontario business cycle.

It is interesting how people came along in 1964 and 1965. I have read a number of the quotations from Mr. Bryden when he was in the House, and Mr. Lewis, and they were condemning it as the worst thing that ever happened. Now they are so anxious to protect and save it but do not want to consider some of the other ramifications to the economy of the province by saying how the auto pact and these other options that are included within the free trade agreement are all part and parcel of a good package that is going to do something for Canada.

The extension of the auto pact to all offshore producers was not a viable option, as the federal Liberal government concluded in 1983 when it decided not to adopt this recommendation made by the report of the federal task force on the Canadian motor vehicle and automotive parts industries. The application of the auto pact to all offshore producers, which would force them to produce in Canada, would also be a violation of the GATT, the body the Premier claims should have a greater role in shaping Canada’s trade policy.

The auto pact provisions concerning domestic manufacturing and Canadian value added are performance standards which represent nontariff barriers to trade. Applied universally, they would impose heavy new costs on complying firms. Their application would also likely be met with retaliatory measures by affected countries, particularly the European and far eastern countries, where Ontario believes we need to make greater efforts to gain market access.

One of the other points that was made by the Premier is that the determination of the duty remission arrangements will severely limit Ontario’s ability to attract new Japanese assembly plants. Does he really believe that?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Why should they have to grandfather the GM-Suzuki deal?

Mr. Cousens: They have because they are already here. They are already getting started. By virtue of the fact that when the negotiations were in progress, I think some of those points had to come back and when they went into the final proof, they were able to put them together. The fact that they recognize it shows a good sign.

It also shows that when the agreement was finally struck, there was a sense in which the transportation industry -- and I know there are a number of other industries -- received some special consideration. OK, that is good.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Do you understand what you are reading? Do you understand the agreement?

Mr. Cousens: I do understand. I wish the minister did and I wish he would stand up and make some kind of speech in defence of his actions.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cousens: I do not think there is any doubt that this House is disgusted at the fact that his government has come along and had a little sideshow that travelled around the province and got a certain amount of data but he has not even come back in the House and made a statement to us. What is he trying to do there? He comes in the House late in the day, he comes along and starts making points, but he has not come out and said honestly where he stands and why he stands there.

We also know there are people in his own cabinet who have different views from the minister and the Premier. There are a number of people in his cabinet saying, “Hey, maybe we should not be coming on so strong on free trade as being opposed to it.” I think that gives some element of truth to the point that is coming from the opposition.

The fact of the matter is that the minister and his government have come out against free trade but they are not universally together on it within their own cabinet. The fact that they are making us sit here and debate this at this point, when in fact they have brought forward --

Mr. Reycraft: We are ready to vote.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: We are ready to vote.

Mr. Cousens: No, no.

Mrs. Marland: They choose who they listen to.

Mr. Cousens: They choose who to listen to.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cousens: They have brought forward a motion here which, there is no doubt, is a foul deal on this House, because there was an agreement that there was going to be a debate. It is a foul deal. If the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology knows so much about free trade, he should come on up and participate in the debate. It is probably the most important debate we will have to take in this parliament.

The minister should come on out and open up the kimono. He should tell us what he is really thinking. He should give us the truth.

Interjections.

Mr. Cousens: I do not want to see it totally open, but I would like to see the truth laid on the table, especially from the minister.

We are concerned with the fact that we are not dealing with all the facts and all the information, because the government is not tabling it all. Therefore, in this debate we are going to continue to try --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. It being six of the clock, would you like to move the adjournment of the debate?

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

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

21 décembre 1987