Journal des débats 1988-janv-06 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Mackenzie: With the signing by Mulroney and Reagan of the free trade agreement, it becomes extremely important for the government of Ontario to clearly and forcefully establish those areas of provincial jurisdiction that the Premier (Mr. Peterson) is prepared to use to protect Ontario workers.

To date we have been disappointed by the rather wimpish approach to any hard action to clearly outline what he will do. The failure of Cooper Tire and Rubber to purchase the Firestone plant is the result, at least in part. With an open border under the free trade agreement the company can produce in its Tupelo plant in the United States and ship into Ontario. There is no need for a branch plant located here. Indeed, testimony before our select committee on free trade had one witness from the trucking industry say he knew of some 500 branch plants that might consider closing if a free trade agreement was reached.

Recent evidence shows that over 65 per cent of all plant closure layoffs are in US-owned branch plant operations. Given this real threat to Ontario jobs, what is the government prepared to do to require justification and public scrutiny before closures can take place? What specific legislation can Ontario workers expect from the Premier to give them some additional protection from pure corporate rationalization under a free trade agreement?

DEVELOPING COUNTRIES FARM RADIO NETWORK

Mr. Villeneuve: Those of us involved in agriculture and agricultural policy are very much aware of the problems caused by worldwide surpluses and low commodity prices. Very often we forget that there are Third World countries and people who cannot even afford to buy the world’s heavily subsidized surpluses.

Therefore, it is reassuring to know that some 100 million small-scale, subsistence farmers are being assisted by a Canadian self-help network based here in Ontario. This network, known as the Developing Countries Farm Radio Network, is based in Toronto and Guelph. Its 800 participants include farm broadcasters and rural communicators in over 100 countries.

The network was founded in 1979 by George Atkins, a well-known Canadian farm broadcaster. George’s idea was essentially a simple one. What he did was gather agricultural tips, from farmers and agricultural communicators from around the world, which could easily be adapted elsewhere.

For example, in Botswana he found that farmers mixed wood ashes with their stored grains. Normally, weevils and other insects eat such grains and introducing such ashes made these pests stay away. When the grain was needed for human consumption, the ashes were simply blown out.

The network was originally a project sponsored by Varity Corp., Massey-Ferguson and the University of Guelph. It has now become a nonprofit corporation and is seeking members and contributors.

I would like to extend our best wishes to the Developing Countries Farm Radio Network in its new form. Should members wish further details, please contact my office.

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. Adams: I am very concerned about the impact of so-called free trade on the quality of our environment. While our environmental standards are generally higher than those in the United States, there are a few cases in which American standards are the higher.

One example of this is the tight controls on unleaded gasoline in the United States. My fear is that those negotiating the trade deal will trade off the many high environmental standards in Canada against the few in the US. In this scenario, for short-term economic gain, both countries, the whole continent, could end up with lower environmental standards.

One very illustrative example of the direct impact of economic decisions on the environment has to do with our ability to purchase low-sulphur coal from Alberta. When the province buys this relatively clean coal, we both stimulate the economy of western Canada and protect our own environment. But, as the Alberta coal is more expensive than high-sulphur US coal, under so-called free trade our purchase from Alberta could be construed as an unfair trading practice.

How can members of the Tory party, in this House and elsewhere, support an agreement which so limits our sovereignty over something so fundamental to our way of life and long-term prosperity as the environment?

Mr. Laughren: When question period begins, this caucus will be asking the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and some other ministers a series of questions concerning the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States of America. We are going to be voting later today, as well, on a government resolution and an amendment that has been put by this party.

We are very sceptical about what the intentions of this government are. I should remind members that it was only a couple of years ago the Premier said: “Don’t worry. First, we will let them negotiate an agreement and see what it looks like.” Then he said: “Don’t worry. I can veto it.” Then he said: “Don’t worry. I’ll impose conditions and we won’t accept it if those conditions are not met.” Then he said, “Don’t worry until we see the final draft.” Then he said, “Don’t worry until we’ve seen the implementing legislation.” Then he said, “Don’t worry until the Attorney General is done with the constitutional audit of the whole process.”

It seems that every time we get over one barrier, the Premier erects another one and says, “We’ll deal with that when we come to it.” We have no reason to believe that this government intends to take any action whatsoever to deal with the problems that Ontario and Ontario’s communities and working people will face if this agreement becomes law a year from now. We are asking the Premier and his ministers to implement legislation that will have a direct effect and challenge this constitutional agreement between Canada and the United States.

PENETANGUISHENE MENTAL HEALTH CENTRE

Mr. McLean: My statement is for the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan). An unreleased report leaked to the Globe and Mail urges the immediate start on a new maximum security hospital at Oak Ridge in Penetanguishene to replace, quoting the newspaper story, “an antiquated prison described as ‘a relic of another age.’

“The urgency of building a new, modern hospital ‘cannot be stressed enough’ the report says. The status quo is ‘not only clinically unacceptable but fraught with danger.’” The story goes on to say that “Oak Ridge was built in 1933 and modelled on a 1920s-era prison.”

I am seriously concerned over reports from the mental health division that additional funding for the province’s psychiatric hospitals will not be forthcoming. The hiring of additional staff cannot occur if funding is not held at the current levels, and the funding restrictions have placed the senior administration at Oak Ridge in the untenable position of being expected to make improvements when the government has tightened its purse strings.

A great deal of enthusiasm has been generated within Oak Ridge over the positive steps that have been taken to improve treatment services for the patients, and I hope that this momentum continues through the hiring of additional staff. I urge the minister to announce immediately the construction of a new facility in Penetanguishene.

1340

CELEBRATION OF JULIAN CHRISTMAS

Mr. Faubert: I rise today to commemorate what is a very important day for people following the Julian calendar. This includes members of the Ukrainian, Russian, Serbian, Greek, Macedonian and Bulgarian communities and members of the Christian Orthodox churches.

For them, today is Christmas Eve. Tomorrow, January 7, all these groups celebrate Christmas; and today, January 6, Ontarians of Armenian descent celebrate this important holiday. This festive season is a time to gather with family and friends and to honour the spirit of tolerance and openness that is building in our community.

It is also a time to think fondly of those we love who may live abroad. Here in Ontario we are blessed to live in a society that allows us to create a better life for ourselves and for our families. We are fortunate to live in peace and security without the daily threat of war and social strife that affects much of the world. For this we are all thankful.

I would like to take this opportunity to extend season’s greetings on behalf of the Legislature of Ontario to all our cultural communities celebrating Christmas. To them, best wishes and may the new year be filled with health, happiness and good fortune for themselves and for their families.

TARIFFS ON SOFTWOOD LUMBER

Mr. Wildman: The free trade agreement signed by Mr. Mulroney and Mr. Reagan specifically grandfathers the softwood lumber export tax. The federal government transfers roughly $2 million each month to Ontario. That means that now there is about $20 million to $25 million to Ontario’s credit.

At the time the Liberal government caved in to this deal the government stated that the provincial government would use this revenue to assist the affected lumber communities. As yet, none of these communities in northern Ontario has received any of this money. It appears that this fund has almost grown to the size of the proposed heritage fund of this government.

Does this government intend to use this money for the purpose for which it stated it was going to use it, or is it just to become additional revenue for the provincial Treasury?

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

FIRESTONE CANADA INC.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: In response to the question yesterday from the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) relating to the windup of the pension plan at Firestone Canada Inc., I am able to provide the following information.

The pension commission has had several meetings with the company, the union and an employee adjustment committee, having both union and nonunion members. Commission staff met with the employee adjustment committee on October 19, 1987, the union on October 21, 1987, jointly with the company and the employee adjustment committee on November 2, 1987, and again with the company on November 17, 1987. Commission staff also attended a general meeting of the union on November 1, 1987.

The purpose of these meetings was to advise all parties of the requirements of the Pension Benefits Act, 1987. The commission first became aware of the company’s intent to use the five-year period to fund the deficiency on November 2, 1987, and all parties, including the union, were immediately advised of the effect on employee transfers.

Members included in the windup of a pension plan have various options, including the right to transfer the value of their entitlement to a locked-in registered retirement savings plan or to an insurance company for the purchase of a pension.

There are insufficient assets in the Firestone pension fund to provide all benefits and the company has five years under the Act in which to fund the deficiency.

Until the deficiency is funded, the regulations under the Pensions Benefits Act, 1987 prohibits lump sum payouts or transfer of funds to members. Interest must be credited on the members’ transfer values up to the date the funds are available for transfer.

Members eligible for and electing pensions commencing during the extended funding period will not be affected in any way and will receive their pension payments in full.

HOME SUPPORT SERVICES AND ELDERLY PERSONS CENTRES

Hon. Mrs. Wilson: I wish to announce an increase in levels of provincial funding for home support services and elderly persons centres.

On behalf of my colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney), I am pleased to be making this statement on the government’s determination to strengthen services to senior citizens living in our communities.

Effective January 1, 1988, the government has approved an increase of $6.5 million annually to revise the funding formula for the home support services for the elderly program and will make available an extra $1.4 million in operating grants for elderly persons centres in 1988-89.

The increase to elderly persons centres will raise the ceiling on each centre’s operating grant from a maximum of $15,000 per year to a new maximum of $30,000 a year. Members of this House will be aware that the $15,000 maximum for elderly persons centres has not changed since 1971. There are currently 158 elderly persons centres in Ontario.

As well, I am happy to report a further increase of the funding formula for the home support program. Up to December 31, 1987, the Ministry of Community and Social Services subsidized approved home support costs up to 70 per cent, with the balance of the funding coming from any combination of user fees, charitable donations and municipal contributions.

Under the old formula, if revenue exceeded 30 per cent of costs, the ministry’s subsidy was reduced proportionately. This practice tended to discourage community fund-raising activities. It also meant that similar home support agencies could have been funded at different subsidy rates.

The new funding formula will flat-line the ministry’s subsidy at a fixed 70 per cent of approved home support services costs. This means that all home support agencies will now be funded at the same subsidy rate. Further, agencies will now be able to utilize funds raised in excess of 30 per cent to improve service delivery.

I note that this represents the third increase to the home support funding formula in the last two years.

These announcements reflect this government’s continuing commitment to those seniors who wish to remain living independently on their own and in their own communities, and to the initiatives outlined in A New Agenda.

RESPONSES

FIRESTONE CANADA INC.

Mr. Mackenzie: I am concerned with the statement, which is about as I expected, that the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) has given us today. I think the operative sections are that there are insufficient assets in the pension fund, which is not totally unusual; but even more the paragraph which simply says that, other than those workers who are now eligible to take a full pension, all of the other workers -- and there are a lot of older workers in there -- can now do nothing, in effect, in terms of getting their money out unless they wait the five years.

Certainly, after an upheaval such as this for older workers in a plant like this, they want to get their financial affairs in order. They want to know they can put their money into some kind of savings or get into it, when they are workers over 40 or 45 especially.

I think the situation is intolerable when a company that is taking the kind of money out of this country that Firestone has in the last year is not required to pay up the $8 million or $8.1 million or $8.9 million, whatever the figure is, that the plan is underfunded.

I ask the Treasurer to consider seriously a regulation, which I think he has the authority to do, requiring Firestone to pay up by a certain date, as soon as possible in terms of the underfunded part of that particular pension plan. I think the workers at Firestone are owed that much at least by the company.

HOME SUPPORT SERVICES AND ELDERLY PERSONS CENTRES

Mr. Reville: Responding to the statement by the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs (Mrs. Wilson), we in this party of course welcome the increase of operating grants to elderly persons centres and note it is something that has been 17 years in coming. We hope the next increase will come next year, not some time in the 2011 category.

We welcome as well the increase in the percentage that the provincial government will contribute towards the cost of home support services. We have talked for years in our party about the necessity of properly funding home support services and the kinds of benefits that home support services bring, not only in terms of human dignity but also in terms of the cost benefit, not only to the providers but also to the people who use the services. It is useful to see that the proportion has now been flat-lined at 70 per cent.

That continues to leave the problem that I raised in the House before Christmas of those centres providing home support services across this province, particularly here in Metro, which, relying on a provincial government indication that 70 per cent would be provided, expended that money in the last calendar year and are now facing serious deficits.

1350

I am sure the minister, together with her colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney), will want to ensure that those centres do not go into a deficit position and that she will hear eagerly from them when they come to her and say that they have, say, a $40,000 deficit. In some cases it will be much less, but we do not want to see any services to seniors curtailed because centres have run into deficits on the understanding that money would be made available by the government.

Mr. Allen: In the same vein, perhaps I can extend an additional remark or two on the same announcement by the same minister. It has been typical for many social program supports that have been provided by government to allow them to suffer the attrition of inflation at a rather serious rate. If the minister looks carefully at the rate of inflation over the period 1971 to the present, I think she will find that in the period from 1978 to about 1983-84 alone, inflation took a toll of 100 per cent of our purchasing power. I suspect that today’s equivalent of $15,000 in terms of purchasing power would be somewhere in the order of $40,000.

I would like to enter a plea at this point in time with respect to this program and others like it, that when governments establish them, and when this government establishes any new ones, they index them to the cost of inflation, because the intention must have been to provide a service at a certain level. In order to maintain that honestly and in good conscience, as a government it surely has to do that.

Also, the home support services program appears, at least to me and to our party, to inch along at an awfully slow pace in this province. We hope someone will put his foot on the accelerator reasonably soon and cover the province in a full and adequate fashion with these services.

FIRESTONE CANADA INC.

Mr. Pope: I would like to comment on behalf of my party on the ongoing inability of this government to help the Firestone workers, as evidenced today by yet another statement from a cabinet minister, this time the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon), who indicated the general situation but indicated no desire or effort on the part of the government to resolve the problem the workers are facing.

Yes, they are great at going to Ohio and having meetings with the chief executive officer and appropriate administration in that company, but they have no specific concrete direction and help for the workers involved in Firestone, no specific announcements of programs, and no money to help the workers’ centre in Hamilton that my colleague the member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson) has raised. Now today, there is a statement that these workers are not entitled to lump sum payouts of their pension benefits. So much for portability.

There is no indication from this government how the payment deficiency is going to be secured for the benefit of the workers. There is no indication today of what attempts this government has made through direct negotiation with Firestone or any other sources to fund the deficiency immediately in order to resolve this difficulty. There is no attempt by the government to address one of the basic problems contained in the first paragraph on page 3 of the Treasurer’s statement, which indicates that in the event of a deficiency there is no portability.

Surely the Treasurer has an obligation, not only to the Firestone workers of this province but to all workers, to remedy that and to provide for ratable payouts. I find the statement of the Treasurer totally inadequate and heartless vis-à-vis the Firestone workers in Hamilton. It is time the government started doing something to help these workers.

HOME SUPPORT SERVICES AND ELDERLY PERSONS CENTRES

Mr. Cousens: I would like to congratulate all members of this House on the announcement for senior citizens because if we were not sitting right now, we would not have had this announcement today. It is a credit to this Legislature that we are starting off the new year able to have this kind of good announcement. For two days running we have had good news for our seniors.

We have to face up to the fact that our seniors in our province have made an investment in this province and for them to continue to live in the way that they want to, and therefore to stay in their own homes and receive the kind of home support and home care that is essential so that they can stay in their own dwellings --

Interjections.

Mr. Pope: The Liberals are mocking this. I cannot believe it.

Mr. Cousens: I did not think it was a funny matter.

For the seniors, it is a very important business that they be allowed to continue to thrive in their own communities and in their own homes. The more we can do to help them do that through effective home support programs, through effective home care programs and through the kind of community programs that have been started over a number of years, then those seniors have a sense of personal satisfaction and personal belonging to the whole community.

This announcement certainly leads in that direction and we would like to see several more things begin to happen around it. One cannot ever say thank you enough for doing more for our seniors. The minister, though, should make sure she gets the money out on time. If the honourable minister can do something with the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) to get the money out to the communities so that they can pay their staff on time, that would be another miracle and something that would begin to make it happen.

Also, the minister should do more, if she possibly can, to increase the salaries of those people who are out serving our seniors in the community. This kind of announcement will help that happen, but indeed their salaries are already at a low level. We have to bring them up so that more people are attracted to that service industry of serving seniors.

Finally, we have got to see effective programs in the community and far more done, rather than just the same old thing. Let us develop some new ways of making sure that our seniors can get out of their homes, find ways of getting to community centres and become active and involved again in our communities. We are going in the right direction. Let us just hope that we can see more announcements tomorrow.

Mr. Harris: I think it is too bad that the largesse of the minister’s statement does not match the size of her trillium brooch. I do want to compliment her. She is a true Ontarian, obviously.

Interjection.

Mr. Harris: I thought it was a pretty good comment.

This statement of the minister does nothing to help people like Neil Calhoun of Sturgeon Falls, 64, a widower and pensioner who cannot find adequate housing. He has a support service now. He cannot get up and down the stairs. He has written to both the minister, I believe, and to the Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons (Mr. Mancini) over a month ago and still has no answer. He is still waiting for some answer, some response from this government to help people. He is 64. Maybe, according to this government, he does not qualify as a senior citizen.

ORAL QUESTIONS

Mr. Speaker: The member for Nickel Belt.

[Applause]

Mr. Laughren: The applause from the other side has me nervous.

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. Laughren: I have a question for the Premier concerning the free trade agreement. For two and a half years now, the Premier has been giving us and the rest of Ontario a lot of assurances that he would not allow Ontario to be part of a free trade agreement that was detrimental to our interests. Now, four days after that pact has been signed, we are staring down the barrel of that agreement.

Is the Premier prepared this year to bring in legislation and make any regulatory changes that are necessary to clearly protect those matters within provincial jurisdiction?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I believe, as my friend believes, that at least in the wine case and perhaps in other situations that may develop over some period of time there are some areas in provincial jurisdiction. At this moment, it is impossible to identify those precisely because the key in terms of determining the jurisdiction is not the signing of the treaty, but is the implementation legislation that will come along possibly at some time in the future. We do not know the answer to that question.

I am sure my honourable friend, on studying the matter, will agree with me. That being said, I share with the member my view that we are under absolutely no obligation to bring in any legislation, regulations or policies in this province to align ourselves with the trade agreement in those areas that are in our jurisdiction. I do not feel any obligation to do so, and indeed that is part of the resolution before this House for debate at the moment.

1400

Mr. Laughren: Any such actions are not part of the resolution before us; our amendment yes, but not his resolution.

I have indeed studied the matter somewhat and I have followed the Premier very closely over the last couple of years. First of all, he said, “Let’s let them work on a deal and see what it looks like.” Then he said: “Don’t worry. If we don’t like it, we’ll veto it.” Then he said, “Don’t worry about that either, because we’ll lay down these six conditions and if they’re not met, we won’t have anything to do with free trade.” Then he said: “Wait a minute now. Don’t worry about it. They haven’t met those six conditions, but let’s wait until we see the final draft.” Then he said: “Don’t worry now; don’t rush things. Let’s wait until we see the implementing legislation.” After that he said, “Don’t worry about that either, because the Attorney General is doing a constitutional audit on provincial jurisdiction.”

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Laughren: Since there are some very clear areas of provincial jurisdiction, such as regional development, some of our cultural industries, health services, social services and government procurement -- all of those things within provincial jurisdiction -- why will the Premier not make a commitment to bring in legislation that enshrines in the powers of Ontario, in law, matters that we think belong to us so that if there is a challenge, they challenge us for a change?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not want to be unkind to my honourable friend, but that was done 120 years ago in our Constitution, in sections 91 and 92. I think that is the reality of the situation. The member can talk to some of the great constitutional experts in this House, but I know he would agree with me in that particular regard.

My honourable friend pointed out a number of things that he feels are within provincial jurisdiction, and if I may just have the floor for a minute, with great respect, I think my honourable friend is not completely accurate in his analysis. When the deal started off under discussion, they were talking about a complete procurement package: state, municipal, federal, defence and civil in the United States as well as all levels of jurisdiction in Canada. That was considerably whittled back, as the member knows, in that defence spending has been precluded from that. That would have been, by the way, a huge win for Canada; it would have given us great opportunities and would have made the deal beneficial if we had been able to have had access to US defence procurement.

It is now just a matter of federal governments, not provincial governments, and we do not have any control over that. But still set-asides exist in the United States, the small business set-asides and others, that render the thing, frankly, of very little utility, in my view. That is where I disagree with my honourable friend that we have jurisdiction in those matters that he has pointed out. The one that is very clear is the wine issue, and I think I have made clear to my honourable friend my views on that matter.

Mr. Laughren: Perhaps the Premier does not understand what I am trying to get him to commit himself and his government to doing. What I am asking the Premier is that since there are areas over which there at least is some dispute about the extent to which Ontario has powers to control them completely -- such as the pricing of energy, hydro -- will the Premier bring in legislation that clearly states, this year, that we regard this as within our jurisdiction?

If a year from now, when the free trade agreement is implemented, the federal government wishes to challenge Ontario’s rights to make legislation in those fields, so be it. But how long is the Premier going to be the patsy who simply sits there, hands the federal government a blank cheque and says, “Do what you want with us”?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I appreciate the honourable member’s suggestion, and if I thought it had any utility, frankly, I would follow his suggestion; but I do not. I do not think any provincial statute asserting authority that we already have is helpful in this regard, one way or the other. If there is a constitutional question at some time in the future over the jurisdictions, it is going to be determined on the basis of the Constitution, not on the basis of some provincial statute passed here in this House.

I think my honourable friend is trying to be constructive and I appreciate his advice, but I do not believe his idea is going to assist this matter in any way.

Mr. Laughren: I have a new question, and I will try to follow up in a way that perhaps will make it clearer to the Premier what I was trying to get at in my first question. It has to do with the whole question of the upgrading of our resources in northern Ontario.

The Premier will know that for years now section 104 of the Mining Act has stated that resources must be processed in Ontario. For years the cabinet, both in the federal government and in this government, has granted an exemption to Falconbridge from that requirement. This government has granted an exemption as well, I believe. They have allowed Falconbridge to ship its ores to Norway.

As a challenge to that free trade agreement, in order to stake out our clear turf on the right to control the processing of our resources for regional development purposes or for job creation purposes, will the Premier put an end to those processing exemptions and make a clear statement that the reason we are doing that is because we believe, despite any free trade agreement made between Ottawa and Washington, that we have the right to control the processing of ores in northern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I understand my honourable friend’s point and I am not sure that the way to make the appropriate point is to end the exemptions under section 104 of the Mining Act, something that has gone on for some time. I am not sure my honourable friend is right that we have extended that exemption. The former Minister of Natural Resources will be aware of that. It seems to me they are still operating under an exemption given by the previous government, although I could be wrong about that. But I am not sure that is the way to make the appropriate point.

The question of subsidies and indeed processing is a very interesting one because that is the very issue that came under a General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade ruling with respect to the British Columbia processing. That whole question of forcing processing in our country is an extremely important one and not something I would like to give up, either for resource products or for mining products, fish or any other way.

I am told that is not the case in the circumstances, but I do not think, as I said, any legislation on section 104 of the Mining Act or any change of that exemption would make the point one way or the other.

Mr. Laughren: I will keep coming back to the Premier with other suggestions until perhaps he will find one he likes. Article 407 of the agreement states that there shall be no restriction of imports. The Premier will know that for many years we have raised in this Legislature the whole problem of the importation of resource machinery; 70 per cent of our forestry machinery is imported and 50 per cent of our mining machinery is imported.

Will the Premier, in the form of a clear challenge -- not to be cute about it but just as a challenge to this free trade agreement that he does not support -- bring in legislation that creates a crown corporation or a joint venture with the private sector, whatever way he wants, but that clearly sets out the goal of replacing imports in those two very important sectors, mining machinery and forestry machinery?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I would not want to develop some artificial policy irrespective of its merits just to challenge an agreement that may or may not be worth while. My honourable friend has given me a number of suggestions to sort of trump up a case or fabricate some kind of fact situation in order to assert our sovereignty in these matters.

I assure my honourable friend that we will not stand for any diminution of provincial sovereignty in that respect, but I do not believe the member’s suggestion of how to solve that is the appropriate way to test the situation.

Mr. Laughren: We certainly have a selective Premier here. I will try another one for the Premier because I know he wants to do something concrete that shows his opposition to this agreement. I think I am correct in that.

The Premier will know that it is now about eight months since the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) brought in his budget and talked about a northern Ontario heritage fund. It is about four months since, in the election, there was a promise of $30 million for that. At this point, there are no criteria for that being distributed. As far as I know, none of it has been distributed.

There is nothing there at all, and since the northern Ontario heritage fund can be seen as a regional development program by the United States -- certainly it could see it that way -- will the Premier bring in legislation that includes the northern Ontario heritage fund so that we have a piece of legislation that clearly is designed to aid in the regional development of a part of our province that so desperately needs it?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: That is the intention of the government. The answer is that the member has hit on one good idea and we had that idea some months ago, but I appreciate the honourable member standing up in support of us in this House on that matter.

Obviously, my honourable friend is putting his questions in the context that we should do this as some kind of a challenge as opposed to the merits of the situation. I have said before that the heritage fund will be created and we expect to be able to introduce legislation some time in the not-too-distant future in that regard.

1410

I guess the deeper question my honourable friend is raising is the question of provincial assistance for industry, be it through the heritage fund, the northern development fund, the Ontario Development Corp. -- God spare me for saying this -- IDEA Corp. or things like that, the kinds of programs we have had in the past, rightly or wrongly.

We will not give up our right to do that. My honourable friend will be aware, on the other hand, that some of those things are potentially countervailable in the United States. We have not even escaped that under the new trade agreement and that is another major flaw of the trade agreement. But we have the right to work with our workers, assist industries and do the kinds of things that an active government would want to do, and we are not going to cede that sovereign right of our government.

Mr. Brandt: Talking about flaws and oversights, I have a question to the Premier with respect to some reports that have been released in regard to the free trade agreement.

I am sure the Premier would want the information that comes out of the government to be balanced and as accurate and specific as possible. Some time ago, the Premier released three reports condemning the free trade agreement. It is interesting to note that some four days prior to those reports being released, another report commissioned by this government, by the Informetrica firm out of Ottawa, indicated quite a different picture as it relates to free trade and the reports the Premier released.

Why would the Premier or one of the ministers of the crown take it upon himself to suppress that report, since it would have given some additional balance to the free trade argument that he has not provided to the people of Ontario as of this point in time?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: That question was asked yesterday of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. I will refer it to him.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: To respond to the leader of the third party, the three reports that were released dealt with process. They dealt with the process of how the free trade agreement was being negotiated and were critical of that.

The Informetrica report was not tabled at that time because it was a background information bit of material that is now obsolete. It is obsolete in the fact that it referred to things that did not happen in the free trade agreement. It took as an assumption that the auto pact would not be on the table. It took as an assumption that there would be a differential in the way the tariffs were reduced. That was a background report that was available to us, as were others, and it was not released.

I should tell the member that in response to his request yesterday, our House leader will be tabling that report today and it will be available for him.

Mr. Brandt: When the minister talks about selective releases, background studies and papers, the headlines the government received at the time it released the three reports indicated 281,000 jobs were either sensitive or at risk in Ontario. The Informetrica report that I am talking about, which the minister has refused to release and which would not even be public knowledge at this point in time had we not brought it up yesterday, shows a net gain of 43,000 jobs in Ontario by the year 2005. It shows a 2.4 per cent gross provincial product increase.

I ask the minister again, when he is prepared to frighten the people of Ontario with this kind of nonsense, why does he not at the same time provide the other information which shows the opposite side of the question?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: As I said earlier, the Informetrica report of November 21, 1985, is obsolete. It was based on premises and financial and economic models that are not relevant. It was based on an assumption that we would have access to US defence procurement. It was based on the assumption of other things that did not happen. I told the member we will be tabling that today; he will have that document.

I also think it is important that the member understands that was one bit of information. When he is talking numbers, we were talking quality of numbers and we were saying -- and that report shows, if he takes a look at it, and he will be able to see it for himself -- that there were a large number of manufacturing jobs with a high value added component that were lost and replaced by low value added service jobs. It was not just the numbers. Again, it was not just quantity; it was quality that was important as well.

Mr. Brandt: That is a rather subjective analysis on his part as to what is quality and what is quantity in terms of the various reports.

Let me say to the minister that during the course of the discussion on estimates, he indicated quite clearly that there were no other reports to be released with respect to the trade agreement. I ask him to respond, if he would, very carefully to the question: are there any other reports that his ministry has commissioned or that he has knowledge of that have been undertaken by the government to have commissioned with respect to free trade that have not been released to this House?

I ask that question in the light of the fact that the Premier and his government have asked us to vote later on today with respect to a free trade agreement, and he has yet to release reports that would be invaluable in terms of information to the members of this House.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: In estimates, I was referring to reports that were commissioned to deal with the decisions that were made based on our free trade decision. Over the last couple of years there have been many background reports prepared for this government. Some of them have been pro, some of them have been con, but they were all used as background material. Most of them are obsolete. They are obsolete in the light of the fact they were prepared before we saw the final agreement. But I give the member this undertaking that we will be referring to the committee, when it is considering this whole issue, many of the reports that we have --

Mr. Harris: That’s too late.

Mr. Brandt: The House will have voted by then.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: We have given the member that undertaking, and we will be providing them.

PERINATAL CARE

Mr. Eves: I have a question of the Minister of Health. The minister made a dramatic announcement that a new perinatal unit will be set up in Ottawa, and supposedly this will address the problem we have seen occurring in the past few days with respect to perinatal problems. The two hospitals in Ottawa, the Ottawa General Hospital and the Ottawa Civic Hospital, inform us they already have level 3 perinatal units that they have been paying for out of their own pockets because this minister and this government have not been willing to fund the level 3 units that they have been funding on their own. They also inform us that they submitted proposals for funding over one year ago.

Is the minister proposing now that she is going to create a third level 3 perinatal unit in Ottawa or is she merely telling us today that what she is finally getting around to doing is funding one of the two that applied over a year ago?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Let me say to the member opposite that his information, as I understand it, is inaccurate; there is not a designated level 3 perinatal unit in Ottawa. We have been reviewing for some time the needs and the capacity within the perinatal system, and I have said that I will be looking to increase the capacity of that system in making a decision.

The Ottawa situation over the past year has been referred to on numerous occasions as “the baby wars.” I was concerned because I had hoped a decision would be able to be made in a consultative and consensus mode within that area. The district health council was consulted as well, and in the light of the events in the last few days, where I was generally extremely concerned about our need to increase capacity and make a decision, I have said that I will be announcing very shortly the decision in the Ottawa area.

Mr. Eves: The minister fails to address the point. The point is there is not going to be one single new service provided as a result of her announcement of the funding. The fact is that these two hospitals are already providing the service they are paying for and that she is too cheap to pay for in that government over there. That is the fact and she is now going to get around to funding one of the two that is already providing the service and has been providing it for over a year. That is what she is telling us today.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Eves: The minister is quoted as saying in the Toronto Star today that the problem is not lack of facilities, it is not lack of equipment, it is merely a “nursing shortage” that is creating the problem. That is what she is quoted as saying. Dr. David Peachey, a director of the Ontario Medical Association, says the problem is lack of ventilators, lack of equipment, lack of beds, as well as nursing staff. Does the minister agree or disagree with Dr. Peachey?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Let me respond in this way and say that any announcements I will be making in the near future around capacity will, in fact, increase the capacity in the perinatal system. That is the purpose of the announcement and that is what I will be announcing in the near future.

1420

Regarding the issue of nursing manpower and also as it relates to generally how we plan for our health professional manpower, it does raise the issue of not only nursing shortages but other shortages in the health care field, something that I am concerned about and have and will be discussing with my colleague the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mrs. McLeod).

Because of my concern in this area, I reactivated the Advisory Committee on Nursing Manpower and I am pleased to inform the member that the committee met for the first time on December 11 and will be meeting again on February 5. I hope to be meeting and discussing with them on a regular basis their recommendations as we look at nursing generally.

To his specific question regarding this last incident -- and I have not had an opportunity to discuss the matter with Dr. Peachey -- the information we have is that there was not a shortage of equipment or respirators or ventilators in the neonatal units in Metropolitan Toronto. The problem there was that there was insufficient qualified nursing staff and that was the reason the baby was flown to Buffalo.

As the bottom line, my priority is to ensure that our system provides --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Eves: Dealing with the issue of nursing shortages, I am pleased to see that the minister did in fact reactivate the advisory committee on December 11, after we asked the question in the House on November 23, I might add.

With respect to the nursing shortage question, Arlene Babad of the Ontario Nurses’ Association says, “There is no question that a nursing manpower shortage has contributed to transfers of this sort,” referring to the problems of the first five days of 1988.

We pointed out to the minister yesterday a nursing shortage at the Hospital for Sick Children. In the neonatal intensive care unit they have 24 vacancies currently, out of a nursing staff of 156. Also, the minister’s own ministry last October did a Ministry of Health report which indicated that Ontario’s hospitals needed at least 1,143 nurses and Metro accounted for 812 of the vacancies. The problem has grown worse since then.

Mr. Speaker: The question should be?

Mr. Eves: The point is that the ONA has been pointing out to the minister for over a year that there is a nursing shortage. Her own ministry last October --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Do you have a question?

Mr. Eves: What has the minister done to address that deficiency?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Let me inform the member that the reactivated advisory committee was reactivated on my request shortly after my arrival at the ministry. They met for the first time on December 11.

Let me say that the committee is responsible for interpreting nursing manpower data and advising the ministry about nursing manpower needs, patient care and related health care in the province. It also identifies and interprets trends and problems which impact on nursing supply and demand.

I would say that this is a broader problem rather than just nursing. It is related to how we do our health care professional planning. I would encourage anyone who has advice on this matter. Not only is this committee operating, I have met with the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario and discussed this with ONA, and just yesterday with some of the senior executives of nursing women in Toronto, the executives from some of the hospitals, to discuss this issue. I think it is extremely important.

The Ministry of Colleges and Universities did increase the enrolment in September of last year and we are monitoring the enrolments to determine what increases are necessary.

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. R. F. Johnston: In answer to the question from the leader of the third party, yes there are other reports and I have a copy of one here prepared, I gather, for the Ministry of Education or for the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mrs. McLeod), to whom I will pose the question. It is chapter 5 of a document that I received in a brown paper envelope and is entitled, “Universities and Other Degree-granting Institutions and the Effects of Free Trade Upon Them.”

The minister will know that since 1984, branch plants of American universities have been offering post-graduate degrees in this province while the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) has systematically been trying to undermine the ability of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education to do so. This report indicates that if free trade goes through, it will be unfair for our government to stop a proliferation of those branch plant operations in this province.

I will ask the minister, in connection with the questions asked by the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) to the Premier, what steps is she going to take to make sure that she reverses the situation that exists now, where it is easier for a branch plant to set up a degree-granting operation in this province than it is for one of our own provincial institutions? Will she take those steps, both for the good of the province and to challenge the deal?

Hon. Mrs. McLeod: The honourable member has made allusions to a number of factors which I am simply not aware of, a number of innuendoes which I would certainly welcome an opportunity to discuss with him. I am certainly confident in the graduate programs of our universities. I am not aware of the degree to which the free trade agreement might interfere with those graduate programs, and if the member has some specifics of a report which I am not aware of, I would certainly be interested in them.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I will send the minister a copy of my brown envelope. I am surprised that she, as the minister, has not been made aware of this.

Another section of this report talks about the problems of our building our centres of excellence to be able to compete, especially given the fact that in the United States there is already incredible competition in centres of excellence, where only 100 universities out of 3,000 are given the right to do that kind of thing and we have only one university here that could possibly compete with them.

This report alleges, “Ontario may find the continental competition for high-technology-related research at least as difficult as the continental competition is within the high-technology industry itself.”

I want to ask the minister, what is she going to do in the face of this agreement, which her report says is going to undermine the capacity of our centres of excellence, to make sure that they are able to compete?

Hon. Mrs. McLeod: I think it is notable that it is in fact in the area of high technology that there has been a tremendous thrust in research. By referencing the centres of excellence, those centres of excellence are all focusing on areas of high-technology research designed in order to ensure that Ontario can in fact be competitive, whatever the changing situation.

PRA INTERNATIONAL INC.

Mr. Pope: I have a question for the Premier, who indicated on Monday that he was prepared to authorize a forensic audit by the Provincial Auditor with respect to the PRA International investment and, as well, IDEA Corp. The Premier by now will be aware that the Provincial Auditor has no statutory power to obtain private documents or to enter into private premises to obtain financial information and therefore, with respect to anything other than government documents, could not perform the kind of forensic audit he admits is necessary with respect to both PRA and IDEA Corp.

Admitting that the auditor has neither the personnel nor the statutory power to do a forensic audit and obtain the necessary information to see where this money went, will the Premier now have a judicial inquiry so we can have the power to get access to these document?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I will defer to the minister.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: As a result of the questions that were asked by the opposition, I should tell the members that my investigation has shown three things can happen. Members should be aware that the Ontario Development Corp. has all of the files of the IDEA Corp. companies, so we have access to those now; Ontario Development Corp., as a shareholder and under the shareholder rights, has access to those companies and is prepared to delegate that access to the Provincial Auditor; and the member should also be aware that we have various acts and statutes that allow the auditor to get into those situations.

Having said all of that, I want to assure members of the House that if the Provincial Auditor comes to us and says there is a certain provision that he cannot get access to, we will bring that to the House and we will provide the proper legislation to allow him to do that. I am giving my assurance that the auditor will have access to anything he wants.

Mr. Pope: I think the public of Ontario deserves better from this Premier and this government than it is getting on this matter. This is the same debate that was protracted over six months with respect to Wyda Systems, where the representative of Ontario Development Corp. indicated there was evidence of commercial fraud.

We went through the same debate in the standing committee on public accounts. The Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) and other members of the Liberal Party who were on that committee can tell the Premier that it is clear now; he does not have to wait to hear from the auditor.

First of all, the Premier has not given him his terms of reference; they have not been delivered to him. He had not asked him in writing to perform a forensic audit as of half an hour ago, when I spoke to him. Not only that, but the Premier is aware -- Mr. Carman is, and therefore so is the Premier -- that he does not have the power to perform a forensic audit and that the shareholders’ agreement, the same way it did in Wyda, does not give the Provincial Auditor or this government the right to do a forensic audit of private financial information.

1430

The minister has known that for a year. Now we have another instance of abuse of public funds. Is he going to have a judicial inquiry and get to the bottom of it, or is he going to sit around, as he did with Wyda, as he did with Graham Software, and watch the public’s money disappear?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member alludes to some wrongdoing, and I should say there is no proof whatsoever that anything was done that was of an illegal or improper nature.

The purpose of the Provincial Auditor’s report will be to determine if in fact there was anything untoward in the administration of that particular loan. Once that report is received, then this Legislature is free to do what it wants with it. But to convict a company and say that there is wrongdoing before any proof has been tendered to this Legislature is doing a disservice to everybody involved with it.

Mr. Pope: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I would ask the minister to examine the transcript of today’s proceedings and make the appropriate apology. I did not allege wrongdoing with respect to PRA. I did not --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the honourable member take his seat? It is not a point of privilege.

Mr. Pope: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: He imputed a motive --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member got up on a point of privilege.

HIGH SCHOOL COURSES

Mr. Mahoney: My question is of the Minister of Education. In the education system today --

Mr. Wildman: He is not here.

Mr. Mahoney: Is he not here? He was here. There he is.

Mr. Wildman: Why didn’t you ask him out in the hall?

Mr. Mahoney: I will just wait. It is okay. I know the member will have trouble understanding the question.

To the Minister of Education: in the education system today it is necessary to present option selection sheets to students halfway through their grade 8 year, at the age of 12 or 13. This is a time of life of great change for a youngster and oftentimes unjustifiable hopes and wishes of the parents.

To quote John Fraser, the director of the Peel Board of Education, in his annual report he says: “Clearly, the decisions are called for too early in the life of a child. Age 16 or after grade 10 would be much more sensible. By that age, puberty would be passed, a significant prior educational history would be available and a clear set of interests and aptitudes would be held by the individual students.”

Will the minister review the timing of these decisions by the students with a view to making them later in the educational life of a student?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I do understand the member’s concern. Certainly at that particular age it is a very difficult and monumental decision for a young person to make relative to his or her future. The receiving schools do in fact try to provide as much counselling and guidance as possible, working closely with both students and parents in helping them arrive at those decisions. But I do want to assure the member that indeed that whole system will be under active review in the coming year.

Mr. Mahoney: The present system, while generally not failing youngsters, as we know, has failure built in. Students make the wrong decisions today for the wrong reasons and they make them too early, often prodded unfairly, and become frustrated as early as grade 9 and drop out. Will the minister assure this House that this review will take place as quickly as possible?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I want to assure the member that students do have the ability, once having made that decision, to register in other courses. They also have an opportunity to take up transition courses in order to enable themselves to do so. But I also want to assure the member that the review will take place very quickly.

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. Morin-Strom: I have a question for the Premier with regard to a regional development opportunity that may well be threatened by the fact that the free trade agreement may well impinge on our ability to set energy prices in this province.

As the Premier will know, there was considerable discussion at the Conference on Northern Business and Entrepreneurship held in Thunder Bay last November about the use of Ontario Hydro as an instrument for the development of the northern economy. Specifically, the Northern Ontario Chambers of Commerce have called for price breaks for northern consumers of electricity.

Is the Premier prepared to commit his government today to such a policy, which would assist in the development of the northern economy?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I met with a group of mayors and municipal politicians when I was in Thunder Bay. They asked for an across-the-board cut and I said, “No, it is not in the cards as far as I am concerned.”

We are prepared to look at selective use of Ontario Hydro for industrial development to make sure we are competitive; and indeed, discounts have been offered for thermomechanical pulping and other applications which are high energy intensive, the things that would create jobs for northern Ontario. We are pursuing that policy and I am not aware of any evidence that this is threatened at the present time, because I believe it is grandfathered.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I cannot understand why the Premier is reluctant to take a step that would clearly be in the interest of northern consumers and northern business, an area of the province which has a much higher level of unemployment than the balance of the province and requires such stimulus.

The Premier must know that the free trade agreement, specifically article 2010, seems to forbid or at least makes very difficult such a policy, which would protect Ontario’s sovereignty in the energy field and at the same time would give us the opportunity to advance economic development in various regions of the province.

Can the Premier tell us today that notwithstanding the provisions of the free trade agreement, his government will look seriously at implementing such a policy in order to benefit the people of northern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think the member asked me the same question in a little different way. My answer is the same I gave to him with respect to his first question.

RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

Mr. Cousens: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. We have many surveys being taken on housing accommodation in and around the Metro area. Every survey paints an even bleaker picture of just what is available for people to rent in Toronto and the surrounding areas.

The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. survey that has just been released tells us something that I think we already knew: that you can get a two-bedroom apartment for $1,000 a month. This is going to make it extremely difficult for people.

In the minister’s opinion, what salary should a person or couple be making to afford such a unit?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I thank the member for his question because it gives me an opportunity to say something about this number. We are very concerned indeed about the release of the CMHC number, but I think it needs a little bit of clarification.

The units CMHC measures are those that are vacant at any given time. The number that was raised, $1,000 for a two-bedroom unit, is for units that were vacant. It was based on 107 units, of the 90,000 units in Metro, that were vacant at the time of the survey. The average rent of two-bedroom units in the city of Toronto and the Metro Toronto region is about $570 a month. That is also a lot of money, but it is nothing like the number the member has given.

Mr. Cousens: I asked the minister just how much a person would have to be making to afford $1,000 a month. If you are going to spend only 25 per cent of your salary on accommodation, you are going to need in the order of $48,000 or $49,000 a year to afford such a unit.

It is becoming impossible for people of low income to rent anything in and around Toronto and area. In Oshawa, for instance, on January 2, there was an article that indicated there are hundreds of people in the Oshawa area who are spending 50 per cent of their salary on rent. We are facing a problem in Toronto where the vacancy rate, according to CMHC, is 0.01 per cent.

Could the minister face up to this reality, or answer the question. When will the vacancy rate increase in the Toronto area from that 0.01 per cent, and what does the minister consider to be an acceptable vacancy rate in the Metropolitan Toronto area?

1440

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The vacancy rate in the city of Toronto is clearly a problem, as it is in several municipalities in the province. That is one of the reasons we are doing so much to protect the rents of those people who are living in rental housing now. The average rent increase for people living in rental housing in Metro from October 1986 to October 1987 was 4.5 per cent.

I do not want to give the member a single number for what an appropriate vacancy rate is; clearly significantly higher than it is now. But let me also say that there has been a significant start in the building of rental accommodation in Ontario in the past year or year and a half. There has been a significant increase in the past year and I believe that increase will continue, but I am not going to minimize the fact that we have a tight rental market and many people of moderate income find it difficult to find accommodation.

That is precisely the reason we have extended rent review protection to all apartment units. That is precisely the reason we are expending our resources and building many more nonprofit units than have ever been built before in Ontario. That is exactly the group of people we are most concerned about -- both the people who have very little and the people of moderate income who find the situation very difficult.

FARM PRACTICES PROTECTION

Mr. Adams: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. The rapid growth of urban and suburban areas in recent years has put great pressure on farmers. Even those farmers who have resisted the takeover of their land by urban interests are being pressured to limit their farming operations to meet the antiseptic nine-to-five needs of rural suburbia. What is the status and scope of the so-called right-to-farm legislation?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Bill 83, An Act respecting the Protection of Farm Practices, was introduced and given first reading several weeks ago. This proposed legislation, which will protect farmers who carry on normal farm practices from court action under the common law of nuisance, is given very high priority by this ministry, as it is by the farm community.

It is just one of a number of very important bills that have been introduced by this government. Had the members of the third party not decided to use four weeks or so of House time to filibuster the free trade resolution, we could well have dealt with many of these bills and had them passed into law by now.

Mr. Adams: In my riding, in the townships around Peterborough, there is a sense of very real urgency about this matter. The widening of Highway 115 and the extension of GO Transit east of Metro is putting extraordinary pressure on farmers in those areas. Can the minister give us some sense of the schedule of this legislation?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I hope to move very expeditiously in the spring session of this Legislature. With the support of the members opposite, I trust we will get this passed and it will be in place for the very situations the member is now describing.

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. Reville: My question is to the Minister of Health. Under the free trade agreement, Ontario faces a horrifying spectre of Kentucky Fried nursing homes. I wonder if the minister, in order to challenge the free trade deal, will commit now to using the regulatory authority provided under the Nursing Homes Act, in effect to deny national treatment to American investors wanting to enter this field, to expand existing holdings or to provide management or other services to nursing homes in Ontario.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: As the member knows, and we have discussed this, I am concerned about the implications of the free trade agreement on health care generally in Ontario, not only in the area of nursing homes but also in the area of proposed surgi-centres, which might be imported from across the border and threaten the very fine system of quality health care that we have.

We are looking at what the implications might be, and I would be very pleased to discuss this with the member further. We are monitoring and watching to determine what the implications and effects might be. I share his concerns about the effects of the free trade agreement on health care.

Mr. Reville: What we need is a strong dose of preventive medicine from the Minister of Health, not a lot of expressions of concern. Perhaps today she can be the first minister of this government actually to commit to doing something real to challenge the free trade agreement. She knows that American investors can also take over the management of hospitals, ambulance services, drug addiction and alcoholism treatment clinics and other institutional and noninstitutional health services. In fact, we can forget 911 and we can start dealing with 1-800.

Will the minister now commit to exercise regulatory authority under the Public Hospitals Act, the Ambulance Act, the Public Health Act and other laws or amended versions thereof, to deny national treatment to American investors, who in fact own some of the largest and most powerful health care companies in the world, to ensure that management and operation of Ontario’s health care system are not really for sale?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Let me very clearly state to the member opposite, and also to other members of this House, that we are monitoring to ensure that we can do everything in our power, whether it is regulatory, legislative or fiscal. All of those options that we have will be examined as we determine what the implications, if any, might be because of our commitment to continue and maintain the quality health care system that we have in this province. I know he will join with me in assisting to ensure that we do maintain those efforts.

FIRESTONE CANADA INC.

Mr. Jackson: I have a question for the Premier with respect to the ongoing problems at Firestone.

Yesterday the head of the union at Firestone in Hamilton referred to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology’s so-called “mission impossible” to Ohio. He referred to it as follows: “There’s now a sense of finality to this roller-coaster ride.... It was a cruel ordeal for the employees to have gone through.”

There is a file this thick of all the publicity the Premier has gotten on promises that he has not kept to the unemployed workers at Firestone. I would ask him to consider the human needs in this plant at this moment. He keeps talking about 1,300 workers whom he would assist, but in fact the best plans for saving that plant would net a benefit to only 800 workers. We still have to deal with and separate 500 workers who are getting their severance slips and will be unemployed after next Friday.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Jackson: Since day one, we have known there were going to be 500 unemployed workers at Firestone. What specific dollars is he going to commit for retraining and relocation needs to those workers, not the 800 who will benefit from the $30 million he might give to an American corporation --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think we have dealt with that question over the last few days; it is the same question that has been asked before. There are a number of programs. We have talked about the adjustment committee that has been chaired by Anne Jones, and other programs.

This government, believe me, will not be parsimonious in helping those people to redirect their lives. My honourable friend asked for a specific figure. There are programs in place and it depends on the uptake, obviously, but I can say to him that we will be generous and we will work with those people. I think most of them feel -- my honourable friend may have contrary information -- that this government has been trying to lend a helping hand.

Mr. Jackson: I am advised by the Speaker that it is important that the Premier not be accused of misleading workers in Hamilton for a third time in this House, and I will respect that. The point remains that I have asked seven questions in this House, always on the same issue of the dollar commitment his government will make to the soon-to-be-unemployed workers at Firestone. He offered $70,000 per employee to cover the 800 whose jobs could be saved by giving a loan to an American firm.

We are asking him to give us a dollar figure and to make a firm commitment, as he did on August 5 when he promised $14 million to help unemployed workers with the Transitions program. He has spent $62,000 to date for the whole province. There are 500 unemployed workers at Firestone. Give us --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

1450

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As usual, the member is getting carried away --

Mr. Jackson: I have Firestone workers in my riding. I am entitled to get excited about this issue.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: -- but he is entitled to do that. I must admit I have some colleagues who used to get carried away the same way when we were in opposition. I think my friend is not characterizing this thing at all fairly. We all care about this --

Mr. Jackson: Put a dollar figure. You have spent $62,000.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: If the uptake on Transitions is 400 workers, it is up to a $2-million commitment. Obviously, we believe that some workers will take advantage of that situation.

Mr. Jackson: You have spent $62,000.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It depends on the uptake. I am not sure if the member was ever a member of the executive council, but his colleagues who were will tell him that programs are set aside and budgetary allocations are made --

Mr. Jackson: Your own Skills Development minister said he would fund the Hamilton centre.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: You answer the question then.

Mr. Speaker: A new question. The member for Brampton South.

Mr. Callahan: In today’s Globe and Mail, it is reported that Peel Memorial Hospital --

Mr. Jackson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The Premier has asked me to answer the question.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Jackson: Will the Speaker not rule that that is a referral?

Hon. Mr. Scott: Are you or are you not a candidate for the leadership of the Tory party?

Mr. Jackson: Amy won’t let me run.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Phil Gillies told me you would be running this time.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We will just be calm and wait. The member for Brampton South.

Mr. Breaugh: Here is my guy.

Mr. Callahan: I thank the member for Oshawa.

Mr. Villeneuve: And he is on his way to cabinet.

BIRTH CENTRE

Mr. Callahan: I noticed in the Globe and Mail this morning with some great delight a report about Peel Memorial Hospital, which is a hospital located in the riding of Brampton South and one for which, along with another facility, I have run in many elections trying to bring about a rectification of the health facilities in our community that were left unattended by the previous Conservative government. I was very pleased to see that the report of the reporter in the Globe and Mail was to the effect that Peel Memorial is expected to be selected today as Ontario’s first birth centre for pregnant women who prefer less traditional labour and delivery practices.

Mr. Speaker: The question?

Mr. Callahan: I also note that the --

Mr. Jackson: Speaking of labour, will you get to your question.

Mr. Callahan: The Tories are doing exactly the same thing, Mr. Speaker. They did not look after Brampton in the past; they laughed about it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. You have a question. I believe it is to the Minister of Health.

Mr. Callahan: I note that the source the reporter uses says that the contest is between Brampton and one other possibility. I would like to ask the minister whether a decision has been made that Brampton will be the location.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: As you would know, Mr. Speaker, the former minister announced early last year that three alternative pilot project birthing centres would be considered in Ontario in the areas of Ottawa, Toronto and northern Ontario. At that time, he invited proposals from hospitals in those areas.

I am pleased to inform the member for Brampton South, who regularly speaks to me about the health care needs of his constituents, that several hospitals have responded to the proposal call from the ministry. When the process is complete, I will be making an announcement.

Mr. Callahan: I draw to the minister’s attention the fact that Brampton, as well as Peel region itself, has been identified by the good auspices of the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) as a high-growth area. As a result, we have received an additional share of the revenues of this province to assist us in that regard.

I also draw to the minister’s attention the fact that Peel Memorial Hospital was granted a five-room burn unit back in the days of the Conservative government -- for what purpose, I will never know. It sat vacant, not to be used for any purpose whatsoever, other than perhaps board meetings. Recognizing all those factors, I encourage the minister that in the choice she makes it will be Brampton.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I am not sure that I noted a question in the last supplementary. If the question was whether I will note the member’s supplementary question, I can assure him that I will and in due course will have an announcement to make.

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. Philip: I have a question to the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet. The minister will be aware that the Mulroney-Reagan trade agreement contains commitments on equal national treatment for companies on both sides of the border that qualify and want to bid on contracts for goods and services offered by public agencies. He also knows that article 103 of the trade agreement commits the federal government to ensuring provincial compliance.

In order to protect Ontario’s sovereignty and to advance the commercial interests of Ontario companies and protect Ontario jobs what action will the minister take? Will the minister bring in legislation to ensure that all agencies of the provincial government will implement a Canadian-first preference in tendering all goods in this province?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I thank the honourable gentleman for his question. It has been a long time since I have had an opportunity to review the clock in this House as we wind through the proceedings. The honourable gentleman knows full well that we will take every step necessary to ensure that we comply with the opportunities --

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Come on, Murray. Give it your best shot.

Hon. Mr. Elston: -- for the enhancement of Canadian production and for participating in the purchase or the sale of goods.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: You should answer some of the interjections over here.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Breaugh: No coaching, Jimmy.

Hon. Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, I thought I was going to be able to answer a question today, but these guys do not want to listen to the answer.

In all seriousness, I am prepared to commit to taking all necessary steps that are open to the Chairman of Management Board to ensure that we have the best possible purchase opportunities for the people of the province. I can tell the honourable gentleman that one of the problems that exists in the government of Ontario that does not exist in the federal field is that we do not have any central procurement agency in the same manner they do federally.

But there are a number of conversations and chats going on through the auspices of the central agent -- my offices, in fact -- which talk about the manner in which tendering will occur, in which we set up the opportunities for acquiring goods and services for the government of Ontario. We will continue to make sure every step is taken to make sure we get a fair and equitable deal for the people of Ontario and that the people who produce the goods in Ontario will get a fair and very equitable shot at providing those goods and services to the people. That is our mandate and that is what we will do.

Mr. Pope: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter), in response to a question asked by my leader, gave an answer that is totally at variance with the December 9, 1987, proceedings of the standing committee on resources development examining his estimates. I refer the Speaker to pages R-31 through R-39 of the transcript of December 9, 1987, where the minister completely contradicted what he said today and said no other reports on free trade existed.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the honourable member for giving the House that information. It is certainly not a point of privilege.

MOTION

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Conway moved that, notwithstanding any standing order, tomorrow, Thursday, January 7, 1988, private members’ business not be considered, that routine proceedings commence at 10 a.m. and that the House continue to sit through the luncheon recess.

Motion agreed to.

1500

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PROFITS FROM CRIME ACT

Mr. Wildman moved first reading of Bill 92, An Act to prevent Unjust Enrichment through the Financial Exploitation of Crime.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Wildman: This bill makes moneys earned by accused criminals from the sale of their memoirs payable to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, which uses funds received in each case to satisfy judgements obtained by victims of crime. It is a bill that was introduced a number of times by my late respected colleague from Riverdale, James Renwick.

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE ACT / LOI SUR LES JUGES DE PAIX

Hon. Mr. Scott moved first reading of Bill 93, An Act to revise the Justices of the Peace Act.

L’hon. M. Scott propose la première lecture du projet de loi 93, Loi portant révision de la Loi sur les juges de paix.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Hon. Mr. Scott: This is a reintroduction of a bill introduced in the last session which is designed to revise the role of the justices of the peace in Ontario on the basis of the report of Professor Alan Mewett of the University of Toronto.

REPORT

Hon. Mr. Conway: I want to inform members of the House that I have laid on the table a number of copies of a November 21, 1985, study commissioned for the Ontario Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology by Informetrica Ltd. re possible impacts of bilateral trade on Canada, Ontario and other provinces.

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. Harris: Now that I have the Informetrica report, I guess I might as well read it into the record so that everybody else knows what it says.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Be our guest.

Mr. Harris: Great way to proceed, gentlemen and ladies.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I have the ministry to run. I would not mind staying.

Mr. Harris: The Minister of Agriculture and Food says he wants to stay and he should. As House leader for our party, I can tell him that we have kept insisting that Agriculture and Food be given more House time. I do not know why he is not getting it, but anyway. I will be careful. I am getting glaring eyes from the government House leader. As we come to the concluding day of this debate, it is probably not an appropriate time to talk House leaders’ business.

Yesterday, I indicated that I wanted to talk on a few areas. One is the process, which is so very important, the way this particular resolution has been handled. Really it is why we are here today and why we were here up to Christmas and between Christmas and New Year’s and after. l think that should be of interest to all members of the House, particularly those not in the executive council.

I also want to talk briefly about the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the principle of freer trade and why it is supported by just about everybody in the world. I then want to talk about the principle of a free trade agreement with the United States and why it makes sense in the context of GATT.

I will then spend probably the least amount of time on the agreement itself, because so many of my colleagues have spent a considerable amount of time on it. I think the views of our party on it are pretty well known, although there are a few aspects of the agreement that I do want to refer to and do want to give my thoughts on. I also want to put on the record the thoughts of North Bay, of the riding of Nipissing and of northern Ontario, some of which I do not think have been put so far.

First, the process. What is happening in the process is perhaps the most important part of this debate. I said as I started that it is the reason it has taken so long; it is the reason we have been here as long as we have been.

I ask the members to imagine, if they will, an important piece of legislation. In our view, free trade and this resolution are probably the most significant things to hit Ontario and Canada in a good number of years and probably will be for many years to come. I ask them to imagine a bill of that importance -- l do not know of one; I imagine there is one -- and the government calls first reading, introduces it, calls second reading, debates it in principle, calls third reading and it is passed into law, enacted into law, enacted by the Lieutenant Governor and that is it.

That is the final statement of the Legislature. Then it says, “Now we will refer this bill, this new law we have all been asked to vote on and decide on, to a legislative committee so we can analyse it in detail and so the public can come in and give its views, its thoughts on what in fact this legislation says.”

That is what we are being asked to do with this resolution. I mention this because there are two forms of items we debate in the House. There are bills and there are resolutions. This one is a resolution and what we are being asked is no different. The resolution has been brought in and it refers to a free trade agreement that has been negotiated by the United States and Canada.

The resolution condemns it, as is the government’s right to say what it thinks about it; I do not question that. It says that the action this government is going to take is a resolution encouraging the government of Canada to reject it and do everything it can to reject it and relays its condemning thoughts. That is fair. That is a fair resolution for the government to bring in. It is a wrong one in our view, but I want to talk process.

Now the government says: “We want you to vote on that. We want a final vote. We want to bring it to its final conclusion. We want to tell Mr. Reagan, Mr. Mulroney, the whole world, or at least the North American world, what we think as an Ontario Legislature, what all the members, what the majority of the 130 of us, think of this free trade agreement. After we have done that and brought it to its final conclusion, then and only then will we give you adequate time to examine the free trade agreement in some detail. Then and only then will we allow you as legislators to listen to what the public has to say. We will refer it to a committee and we can hear; we can have input; we will have hearings. What does the rest of Ontario think? What do the unions think? What do the companies think?”

It is a totally backwards procedure and it is very wrong. Legally it can be done but it makes no sense. On top of that, just today we have the tabling of another report that was hidden, that was covered up, that nobody but the minister and perhaps the executive council knew about. Maybe it was only the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and the minister. Maybe it was only the minister; I do not know. If it was, we can be sure the minister will be hearing something from the Premier’s office.

One thing we do know is that the members of this Legislature did not know this report existed and did not know what was in the report until yesterday, which I guess was the first time we learned it existed. Perhaps the minister or the Premier or the executive council will tell members whether they knew of it, but I know none of the rest of us knew, including the members of the Liberal caucus.

1510

Here we have been asked to debate, and they have been asked -- I know they have been told they will not be speaking today, that yesterday was their last opportunity to speak on it -- to put their thoughts on the record before seeing this report. It would not have been tabled today if it had not been brought up yesterday by our party. We have had to drag out of this government every piece of information that in any way appeared to present a balanced viewpoint on free trade, save and except the report of the Ministry of Treasury and Economics.

I can only say that the Treasurer, the member for Brant-Haldimand (Mr. R. F. Nixon), is maybe not going to run again. This is probably his last election, his last session. In all conscience, he probably felt: “It is not fair. It is not fair to the public, it is not fair to the people who elected me, it is not fair to my colleagues for me to hide this report. I will table it in spite of the fact that it does not look too good for the government.”

He is the only one. We wonder how many others there are. Some members may say that is innuendo, that I am implying there is something else being held back, and I do not know. That is true: I do not know, but the example of this report and others, the history of the way this government and this Premier operate, tells me there very likely are other reports that have not been tabled.

I think the members of the New Democratic Party would want all the information, too. Gosh knows, there may be reports that are so overwhelmingly condemning that it will make the government look bad for not condemning the deal more strongly, as the New Democratic Party has pushed this government to do. We do not know. That is the problem, and that is the process problem.

I said yesterday that I did not want to get into the specifics of the particular communication, or lack of it, among the House leaders, and I will not do that. I just want to confine myself to what has really concerned us, that is, what we are being asked to do and with the information before us.

Why is this so alarming? Surely members ought to be concerned that they are being asked, as members of this Legislature, regardless of party affiliation, if one is not in the executive council, to give speeches. Can members imagine some of the things they have said, based on the information given to them? Maybe this report, after they get a chance to read it, will point out something they have said that is silly. At the time, with the information they had, it may have made sense. With the stuff fed to them to write their speeches, it probably made sense.

But I would be offended if I were one of those members. I would be offended if my own government held back information that caused me, perhaps, to give a speech that did not make much sense or did not reflect the whole picture. So it is alarming on its own.

It is also alarming in the context of other things we see this government doing and the way it proceeds. I am not digressing from the topic, but I think it is important that this be placed in the context of other examples.

Meech Lake: We on this side of the House implored the Premier, after the signing at Meech Lake of the tentative agreement, to take that agreement to the people, to open it up to the constitutional experts in Ontario, to open it up to the public and hold hearings before he went back to sign the final agreement. The Premier said no. Other jurisdictions had hearings. Regrettably, in my view, the federal government did not. I think it is regrettable. Our position was that there ought to have been discussion before the final signing -- then; not after the hearings, before.

So Quebec had hearings. But what did the Premier say? He said: “No. The less you know about this the better.” I guess that was his attitude. “So I am not going to tell you everything about it; I am not going to invite the constitutional experts; I am not going to invite opinion from the public; I am not going to hold hearings. I am going to go down and sign the thing and be finished with it.” Then he came back and said: “That is it, no changes. Like it or lump it.” Now we will have hearings and see what the public thinks.

In our view, that is not the way you should proceed. It is legal. To me it is a sign of arrogance to proceed that way. It is a sign of: “I am right, and if there is any chance that any evidence will show I am not right, I am not going to release it to you. I am going to go ahead and do it.” That worries me.

We saw it on Meech Lake. Now that it is all signed, we are going to have hearings on Meech Lake. We are going to hear what everybody thinks, but we are not going to be able to do anything about it, and I think that is wrong.

We saw it on Sunday shopping. We had an all-party committee on Sunday shopping. They studied the problem. They heard hundreds of presentations and briefs. They made some recommendations. All members of the committee signed it -- there was no dissenting report -- including the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith). The Premier said, and I forget the exact wording, that unless there was something glaringly wrong or dastardly, or some wording to that effect, he would accept it.

In the election he said the committee had found that there was a consensus in Ontario for a common pause day. “I accept that,” he said, “and I don’t plan any changes.” Then when he came in with his majority and he was able to do what he alone wanted to do --

You must understand how the system is working. It is not only the back-benchers who have no say. I heard about their caucus. They were told what they were going to do. It is not only the back-benchers who do not have a say. The cabinet, indeed, does not, either. For if the Solicitor General, when she took them all out to dinner last week to thank them for sticking by her, signals anything to them, it should signal to them that in spite --

Mr. Faubert: I was not even invited.

Mr. Harris: Well, maybe she invited only those who supported her. Perhaps you spoke up. There is a price you pay for speaking your mind: You missed dinner, but you were probably able to sleep a little better.

Members should understand that the Solicitor General was overruled by one man. She was told: “I do not care what you thought was right, I do not care that that is what Ontario wants; I do not care that that is what all the committee said, and I do not care that you have to sign the report. If you want to stay in cabinet, you just buckle down and live with what I am going to tell you.”

I think the Liberals really ought to think seriously -- and I am taking a little time to go over the process of this free trade agreement -- about what is happening to their rights, as well as to my rights and, indeed, to the rights of all members of this House -- indeed, even those of some of the members of the executive council, strange as it may seem to them. I know when they first ran they thought, “Gee, when I get there I will be involved in the decision-making process.” Now it is, “Gee, I guess when I get into cabinet I will be involved in the decision-making process.”

They are finding out about this Premier and some of the cronies he has around him, some of the crony advisers, most of them from the Trudeau days, that that is how they operated in those days and that is how this Premier is operating. That is what is so scary about what we see happening in this process. The rights of all members are being stomped on in this resolution and in the concentration of power into the executive council, and the Premier’s office is virtually taking over this Legislature.

1520

When the federal government came in with an overwhelming majority, the first thing it recognized it must do was to give more power to the opposition, it must give more power to the committees and it must make the role of back-benchers more meaningful. The reason they did that was that they knew they had a cabinet of 25 or 30 members, and in their case there are another 190 members. They knew that if they did not give those members some power, give the committees more power, they would face dissension. There was a self-serving reason for Mulroney to do it, but it was the right thing to do as well. It extended power to all members of the Legislature, more power to the committees.

When the funding formula comes up, as it does after every election, federal or provincial, the federal government said to the opposition parties: “You have lost hundreds of seats, but we will give you the same amount of money for research so that you can still play a meaningful role in this House. You still have the same number of ministries to critique. You will have the same number of committees -- in fact, more committees under the new structure.” That is what happened federally, and it was a good thing. That has not happened here.

The funding was cut for the opposition. There has been some attempt to talk about committee restructuring, which we all agree with; but without the resources, we are not going to agree to it, with the example that we see of this government and the total disregard it is showing for the committees and for the recommendation of the back-benchers, whether it is an all-party agreement like Sunday shopping or something like Meech Lake, where they are a little concerned that even their own members, if they really get into the facts, may not agree with it, so they say, “We will sign it now.”

When we get into free trade, if they hear from the public, if they hear what everybody has to say and what everybody thinks, they may not agree with this resolution. They say: “We had better get it voted on now before there is any rebellion in the back benches and they find out what we have done to them, before they find the information we have hidden from them,” as we see from the report that we finally got today, which none of the members had an opportunity to read before they could give their speeches.

That is the process. That is the reason this debate has taken so long, because we know as far as the parliamentary process goes that this may be the last opportunity to debate free trade. The government, once it has taken its finality of position, may, if it wants, give us an opportunity again, but it does not have to. There is nothing we can do as an opposition to get the debate back on the table in this chamber.

We have taken our right to speak now. We disagree very strongly with being forced into this position. We recognize it is not illegal, it is just morally wrong. I think it is politically stupid, too, by the way. However, we recognize that if the Premier can control the 93 members of his caucus -- I made a mistake yesterday -- he can literally do whatever he wants, including shutting them out of the debate and out of any meaningful discussion or any meaningful input into what is going to happen in this place.

It is also the first major resolution to come before us since September 10. That is why it is so important. There have been a number of members who have talked to me outside the chamber and in the chamber saying: “How long are we going to be here? Why are we doing this?” I think it is important that the members opposite understand that what we are fighting for are their rights as well. Indeed, they may not all accept that today, but I know from a number of private discussions with a number of them that they do agree with that and that they do understand.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Put your hand over your heart; it has more meaning. This is good, very touching.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: It has nothing to do with free trade.

Mr. Harris: They cannot admit it publicly; I understand that. The members may not accept that today.

Interjection.

Mr. Harris: Well, I have given three examples; I could give others.

In the future, when more examples come along, when they are told to bite the bullet, “Never mind what you think; this is the way you are going to vote in committee, friends,” when the whip comes running down into committee just as they are set to come to a vote on something or a debate on something and says, “No, no, that is not what Hershell wants,” I want them to reflect back on this debate. I want them to reflect back on what they were asked to do in this debate, and they will see why this process bothers us. They will see why we condemn it and they will understand.

Some of them have already understood and have privately said to me, “Mike, we agree with you.”

Mr. D. R. Cooke: Who are they?

Mr. Harris: I am not going to name names, but they will know who they are, and I respect that. I respect their inability to speak out at this particular time. They should think about it, because their rights are being violated in this Legislature.

I said I would talk on the process and I have done that. I want to talk about GATT for a minute before I get into this particular trade agreement. I am not sure if many members, particularly the new ones and even some of us who have been here for a while, understand what is meant by GATT, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. I want to review briefly my understanding of GATT, not in any detail -- members can read all that -- but of GATT and of the importance of GATT.

The general agreement is the only multilateral instrument that sets out the rules for international trade. Its basic aim is to promote international trade by reducing or eliminating tariff and other barriers. Canada agrees with that. I think everybody in this chamber does. I know the Premier does, so I am sure he has told them that they have to agree with it too.

Canada agrees with it; 86 or some-odd countries -- I do not know how many they have -- 95 agree with that. The principle is that if you can reduce trade barriers, everybody benefits, so that if in the total world there were no trade barriers, no tariffs, this world would be a better place and each member country of the world would be a better place. That is what GATT strives for, and it does it through a system of penalties. Not only must there not be a tariff, but also there must be fair trade practices. You cannot dump. Dumping is when you sell something more cheaply into a market than you sell it for at home, and normally it is sold below cost.

Many of the members will remember the Lada car that was dumped in Canada by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. I do not know why the government accepted it. It sold here for about $5,000 in its heyday. It came in here in the l 970s. I was in Russia in 1972. A typical car that looked like a Lada sold for about 15,000 roubles, or about $20,000, plus about another $5,000, we were told, to get on the list to be able to buy one. But it was able to be shipped with middlemen paid, distributors paid, dealers paid, salesmen paid, and sold in Canada for $5,000. That is not fair. That is what GATT tries to avoid.

GATT says we will all benefit. I think the government of Canada and most people in Canada, certainly this Premier and our party, believe that. The problem with it is that it is difficult to get 95 countries to agree. It is difficult to get all the countries to agree. It is nearly impossible to get the European Community to agree. They have formed their own little alliance.

1530

The member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) can tell members how difficult it is to crack that market. He has spent considerable time there trying to get access to that market for our forest products. They told him to go away. They did not care about Canada.

The Pacific Rim, of course, is the other big market, Japan particularly. We cannot get access to Japan under those rules, so we have to go where we can get a deal. If it is good that the barriers are down, then we must accept that it would be good if we could reduce the barriers to our major trading partner.

It is good for two reasons. First, if the principle is good for all nations, it is good for one. The United States is our largest trading partner by far, so it is good, obviously, that way. There is a second reason why it makes sense and is good: Instead of the clout of 25 million people trying to crack the European market, trying to crack the Pacific Rim, trying to hold out an example for the world why it must treat us fairly, it gives us now close to 300 million people. We are part of that. We will benefit.

I hear members saying in opposition to this trade deal that we should be going into the Pacific Rim, we should be going into the European Community, we should be less reliant on the United States. We agree, but those members are not doing anything about it. They have also found, as the Canadian government has found, that they do not want us. They do not want to treat us fairly if they do not have to. We need some leverage to get in. We need leverage to crack the European Community so it treats us fairly. We need leverage with the Pacific Rim countries.

The United States is having difficulty, with its big market that it has to offer. So aside from this agreement itself, there is an advantage for the United States to hold out as an example to other countries around the world: “We have a deal with our neighbour, one of our most important trading partners. We have a deal. We have been able to negotiate that deal with them. Now we are coming to you and saying we want you to treat us fairly as well.”

There is a great incentive for the United States to sign a deal at any cost, whether it is totally to its advantage or not. It needs that example. That is why. That is one of the side benefits of a deal at this time and it is of tremendous benefit to Canada to have the leverage of the United States, as well, in trying to gain more access to the European market, to the Pacific Rim and to other countries. It is important in that way as well.

Aside from the fact of what most of the discussion has been around, it is a good deal immediately because it opens further access to the American market. It is not perfect. I am now going to get into the area where I do not know that this deal is perfect. I am certain it is not everything we would want it to be. How could it be?

I can tell members my marriage is not everything I want it to be. I hope my wife is watching today. I have had to make some compromises. I have not had everything my way. To my wife’s credit, she has probably compromised more than I have, which has allowed us to last as long as we have, 39 years. No, it just seems that long. I just want to let her know I am well.

There are compromises. We had to go into a deal and negotiate the best deal we could for Canada. The condition was this: The United States needed the deal to show the rest of the world. It needed it worse than we did in that way. We had a President who recognized the global picture.

An hon. member: We had?

Mr. Harris: In the United States. He was interested in doing this deal with Canada. We have to have a national perspective. We cannot come into it with a provincial perspective or it will not fly. That is where we see all the protectionist legislation, and it was at a time when protectionism was rising in the United States.

Yesterday we heard from the member for Rainy River (Mr. Hampton). He talked about the desperate situation in the northern United States. He talked about mills closing. He talked about the problems they were having in Minnesota. That is because Canadians are thumping the bejabers out of them; we are doing a better job than they are. There is free trade in those products and in those industries, and we are winning that deal. That is why they are suffering. That is why the protectionism is coming. But unless we have some kind of guaranteed deal, the status quo is not going to stay. We need that so we can continue to win in those industries.

In regard to the auto industry, there is growing resentment in the United States. We are winning in the auto industry as well. That is the free trade agreement, the auto pact that we have with them -- a pact, incidentally, of which the union said, “No, Canada will crumple if we have to compete fairly with the United States in the auto industry.” The union said, “No, we don’t want the auto pact.” The New Democratic Party said, “No, we don’t want the auto pact.” What happened when they got their free trade? Canada won again. We proved again that we can compete, and it has meant untold thousands and thousands of jobs and millions and, indeed, billions of dollars for us. So we want in the other sectors what we have had in some of those.

I want to give members a couple of interesting figures to think about for a moment. One is that, of the trade now between Canada and the United States, 80 per cent is duty-free; there is no tariff. We are talking about only 20 per cent left. I am not sure members knew that figure. We are talking only about 20 per cent; 80 per cent is now duty-free. So we are talking about extending that to the other 20, at the same time trying to hang on to the 80 that we have. We saw what happened with the shakes and shingles. We saw what happened with the softwood lumber. We see the protectionist bills coming.

We have done very well with the 80 per cent. We are winning that. Now we want to extend it to the other 20, for two reasons: to be able to compete in those areas as well, but perhaps even as important, to be able to hang on to what we have, to be able to hang on to the 80 per cent that is duty-free.

I was intrigued today in the House. We had a question asked by the New Democratic Party to the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. Elston). Who asked that question?

Mr. Philip: I did.

Mr. Harris: The member for Etobicoke-Rexdale. He asked the question: “Will you guarantee a Canada-first policy for the Ontario government?”

I suggest to the member that I think free trade is trying to get away from that. I do not mind being on the record with that. Members can use that if they want to twist it out of some context in the future. They can use that. I agree with it as long as that is what everybody else is doing. I am one who has said we should have an Ontario-only policy as long as that is what Quebec has, but we should be striving to break those barriers down.

So now what they want, as an Ontario government with our budget of $35 billion, is to lock up that market to the exclusion of the government outlays of well over $1 trillion just by the federal government in the United States, plus all their state budgets. I do not know what they are, but surely we are talking $2 trillion or $3 trillion, or maybe 30 times as much spending power.

Members opposite want to say, “We are going to hang on to our $1 to the exclusion of the $30.” That does not make sense to me. It does make sense that if they have barriers, we have them. We are trying to break down those barriers. We want access to American government spending, to state government spending and federal government spending because it is of a lot of benefit to us. It means jobs in Canada. It means we can compete.

1540

This leads me to a couple of other things I want to say. One is a speech that was given by Allan Gotlieb, if I can find the documentation. Allan Gotlieb delivered a speech that talked a little about how we, as Canadians, feel about ourselves, and it talked about how others see us as Canadians.

Here is the speech. It was delivered on September 10, 1987, to the Canadian Club of Ottawa at the Chateau Laurier. I do not want to read from the whole speech. There were several write-ups on it in the Ottawa Citizen. Interestingly enough, if members want to read an abridged version of it, Reader’s Digest of January 1988 gives --

Mr. Laughren: Reader’s Digest?

Mr. Harris: Yes, interestingly enough. It gave a synopsis of the speech. I want to refer to it briefly because it is important.

I have listened to people who are in favour of this specific free trade deal or any free trade deal and those who are opposed to any free trade deal or this specific one. It is not always so -- I do not want to generalize and I do not want members to feel that, if they are opposed, I am lumping them in there automatically -- but I have found that those who are in favour are those who tend to have a little more positive outlook on life, those who think well of being a Canadian and being able to compete, those who believe in themselves, believe in their companies and believe in our ability.

Those who have been opposed tend to be those who are afraid, those who think we are inferior, those who think we cannot compete, those who think: “The only way my industry can compete is if it is protected, that is, if the government subsidizes me unfairly, or if the government puts up a tariff and says, ‘Nobody else in the world.’ Even though we know they can make it better and cheaper than we can, we’ll put up a tariff so the consumers can’t have that product, and that will keep our industry afloat.” That is how they want to survive.

I will tell members what bothers me about that. That is not the kind of world I want to live in. It is not the kind of country I see myself living in and working in. It is not the kind of country I want my son to move into. There are people in the United States who feel the same way. There are more in the United States than there are in Canada who feel the same way.

“‘There are a number of people in Canada who see themselves as far inferior to what we really are and far inferior to how the rest of the world perceives us. The myth of national inferiority is endangering a potential free trade agreement with the United States. We could make an error of historic proportions, as we judge one of the most consequential negotiations in our nationhood, if we fail to see ourselves as others see us,’ Allan Gotlieb told a luncheon gathering of the Canadian Club in Ottawa.

“He said, ‘Canadians tend to view themselves as a meek middle power’” -- I did not like his generalization; some Canadians do -- “‘reliant upon the protection and support of the United States, yet fearful of American domination.’ We should not think of ourselves as the mouse and the elephant or as the modest middle power next to the giant or as a beleaguered society constantly threatened with absorption because he says the world does not see us that way and he says the Americans do not see us that way.

“There is no sign anywhere that the Americans see a trade agreement as a means to swallow Canada up. That is a Canadian myth. He said, ‘It is this growing desire in the United States Congress to create an insulated, if not isolated, society that provides the most compelling reason to strike a free trade deal.’”

He goes on, and I commend his speech to the members. They can get it in the library and they can get a copy from me, if they like. If they cannot be bothered, they can read the Reader’s Digest précis of it.

Mr. Fleet: That is what you are going to give us now, is it?

Mr. Harris: No, I am not. There are other people who want to speak today, but I am here to refer to it and to tell the members to read it. In doing that, I am also telling the members that I agree with it. I believe that what makes life worth while is not hiding in fear from others, but doing the best we can and being the best we can be. When we do it, indeed, as a nation, we have some natural advantages. Smallness has some advantages. We have proved ourselves to be the best.

That is why that attitude is one that I think makes life worth living. I think it will make Canada the big winner in this trade agreement. There will be far more jobs for my children and their children in the future. Canada will be a far greater power 20 years from now than it is today. I believe that. We have all the potential in the world. I know I am generalizing a little again, but it bothers me that those who appear to oppose this deal are those who do not feel that way. They feel we are the little Canada. We are always going to have to rely on the United States to have its nuclear warheads and its armies to protect us.

We are always going to have to rely on the United States for our entertainment and for our TV. If we want good TV, the joke in Canada is that we have to have cable. We have to get the satellite to get TV. I find it strange because I think that with our culture, our identity, our way of life, being Canadian, the stronger we are, the better chance we have to keep it and to build on it. Those who pull back in fear and rely on protectionism will, in fact, affect their culture. That will affect their Canadianism.

It will also affect our ability to afford the social programs that are unique to Canada that we treasure. Some of us treasure them and would like them a little more than others. I admit that I am not one who feels that we should be putting significantly more dollars into social programs. I think some redirection of some of the dollars we have is more appropriate.

None the less, we do have some unique social programs. If we want to keep them, I believe we have to think positively about ourselves. We must be successful as a country. We must be successful as a company. We must be successful as a province. Free trade offers us a positive opportunity to strengthen what we have. It is not this versus the status quo. That is why it is good in multiples, because we must avoid the rising protectionism in the States. The status quo is not a starter.

Madam Speaker, I have talked to you about the process and I have talked a little bit about why I believe in the principle of free trade. I believe this deal is a good deal for Canada.

1550

I want to comment briefly about the deal. It is not perfect. I am sure if Brian Mulroney could have sat down and written out the deal and said, “This is what I want,” it would have been different, it would have been stronger for Canada. It had better have been; you do not go into negotiations with the minimum that you are going to accept as your opening position. Any members who have been involved in negotiating -- a lot of them have been trustees or on councils -- or any members who were in businesses and who have had to negotiate salaries, know the union does not come in with the opening position it ends up with.

So I want to talk briefly about the deal and a few thoughts that I have on it, acknowledging it is not perfect. The interesting thing about this deal --

Mr. Fleet: It is not perfect, it is awful.

Mr. Harris: I guess maybe once the government quits covering up all the reports and gives the member more information, he may not think that.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: There is not a report on this deal --

Mr. Sterling: Neither are the other ones, David, neither are the other ones.

Mr. Harris: Perhaps while the members want to interject, I could have another glass of water. I want to comment briefly. A lot of talk has gone into this deal. I indicated I wanted to address my remarks to the process, to my own thoughts, to how I feel as a Canadian, as an Ontarian and some of the things that I thought might not have already been on the record, but I think I would be remiss if I did not refer briefly to a couple of aspects of the deal.

Securing access to the American market: Much talk, much discussion has been made about the dispute mechanism. I am not sure exactly what members thought we could achieve. Perhaps -- at least I hope -- Mr. Mulroney thought he could achieve more than he did; he should have. You do not go into negotiations without thinking that. The important thing is, was it a gain, is it better than the status quo? And even knowing that the status quo is a nonstarter, is not going to be with us, is it better than that? Most experts say it is; most experts say it is better than the status quo.

I have heard the Premier. I listen very carefully to what he says because sometimes he slips in things that maybe he is not exactly sure of. I think it is because deep down inside he probably believes in the deal, but for political reasons his flackies around him have told him, “You cannot do that.” He said in response to one question that it may be slightly better; he said words to that effect, something like that. Does he want worse than the status quo? Is that what he is saying? If it is slightly better, it is a gain; and I think it is a great deal better.

The other interesting thing about the dispute settlement, about this free trade agreement is that it is fluid, it is not cut in stone. A lot of it is still to be negotiated; a lot of it relies on good faith, as a relationship in a marriage does, as a relationship with a company and its employees does. If the government is that fearful of the United States, then I pity it, because it will for ever think of itself as a little mouse here in Canada: “Oh, oh, they will roll over us when they want.” I cannot accept that philosophy in life.

I also find it interesting -- as I said, this is fluid -- that it can be changed, that it can be improved upon. We will see how it works, and then both sides can renegotiate different aspects, small parts of it, the large part of it.

The other interesting thing about it is that if you do not like it, you can walk away from it in six months. If you do not like it, you walk away from it.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: After the damage is done.

An hon. member: What’s the big gamble?

Mr. Harris: What is the big gamble? There is no risk. The only risk is to dare to be good, to dare to be the best, to accept the challenge. That is all it is, and if you do not like it, you can cancel it.

You contrast that to Meech Lake, which those guys are flogging around here. Once Meech Lake is passed, it is finished. You can never, never change some aspects of the Constitution again. It will be finished. There is no mechanism. In fact, the mechanism now is that seven provinces have to agree. In the future, it will have to be 10. How is it ever going to change? If 10 provinces agree, there is no need to change it. So if nine provinces want something that is good for Canada and, for some reason or other, the 280,000 people of Prince Edward Island say no, that is it; it is finished.

Those guys want to whip that through. They want to sign that before hearings. They think it is wonderful. They think it is a good deal for Canada, a good deal for Ontario. Yet here you have a deal that, if you do not like it, you cancel it.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: The industry will be gone. How do we get it back if we cancel it?

Mr. Harris: Well, my colleague tells me that article 2106, “Duration and Termination,” says, “This agreement shall remain in force unless terminated by either party upon six-month notice to the other party.”

So I do not understand. I understand the political argument. I understand where the Premier is coming from. I understand politics. I understand that John Turner, probably even today, is in favour of free trade. It strikes me as odd that he was in favour of it for 50 years. How old is the next leader of the third party in Ottawa?

Mr. D. R. Cooke: He has been in favour of it as long as Andy Brandt was opposed to it; about the same period as Andy Brandt was opposed to it.

Mr. Harris: Listen, I might call him a friend and colleague. He will probably be calling us pretty soon, after the next election, to give us some advice on how to handle the move into third-party status, and I can give him some advice.

He is taking a political position, and I hope he watches this; I hope he hears I said it. The reason he has no credibility is that I do not think he believes what he is saying. And he does not have any credibility. I mean, the polls show that, the public reaction shows that.

But he is taking a political position on free trade, and the Premier of Ontario, the guy that members opposite applaud and support and do whatever he tells them to do, whether it is right or wrong or they think it is right or wrong, has taken a political position in the last campaign. His advisers told him, “At this particular time, Premier, you must make these statements about free trade because it will create some fears and it will help you in the election.” And it did. It was a good political decision.

Given the flip-flops and the way he has gone back and forth, for some reason or other I guess the advisers said: “Well, gee, I know we only meant to use it to get elected, but you have got to stick with it now, Premier. You have to stick with it.” So he has kind of said, “Well, let us just be as wishy-washy as we can for as long as we can.”

Quite rightly, the official opposition, the New Democratic Party, said, “No, you cannot be wishy-washy; you have to take a stand,” and I think they have pushed him into trying to take a stand. Our party has said, I think quite rightly, “No, you must take a stand.”

Politically, the official opposition won, I guess. They pushed him into more opposition to it, although many of the New Democratic Party members have told me they still think the secret agenda is to flip-flop further down the road.

I was interested in the comments that were made yesterday by the member for Lincoln (Mr. Pelissero). The member for Lincoln, if members will check Hansard -- I do not have it with me; if I had it, I could quote it -- said, and I hope I paraphrase correctly, something to the effect that this deal should be analysed, it should not be rushed into; that perhaps six months should be taken to take a good, in-depth look at this deal to see if it is good for Canada.

I agree. We agree. That is what this debate is all about.

1600

Mr. Fleet: You are supporting it without --

Mr. Harris: Yes, we are. We do not want to. We have been forced into a position, you see, of saying, “You must give your one and only guaranteed speech in the Legislature now, before you have a full chance to examine it, before we have public hearings, before you read all the secret reports that we have been hiding,” and they finally sneak in. So I agree with the member for Lincoln. What happened on Meech Lake was that there was a tentative accord. We asked for hearings then: “Let’s take some time before you do the final agreement.” The Premier said no and away he went. The member for Lincoln said, “Let’s take some time.”

What has happened? The federal government has signed and said, “Look, we’re going to sign this and then we’re going to present it to our House of Commons, we’re going to present it to the country.” The Americans signed it on January 2, so: “We’re going to present it to Congress, we’re going to study it and we’re going to see if it’s a good deal. Then we will ask you all to vote on it and we will accept it or reject it.”

The only place that is not happening is here in Ontario. We have been told: “No. Vote against it right now. Condemn it right now. Hide the facts if any of them look as if they do not agree with our position and vote on it right now.”

It is interesting --

Mr. D. R. Cooke: Where is Andy Brandt? He said we had to decide.

Mr. Harris: The member for -- where is his riding? I might as well get him on the record -- Kitchener (Mr. D. R. Cooke) refers to a resolution from my leader.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: He wanted immediate endorsement.

Mr. Harris: No: my leader wanted a debate. The resolution was for an emergency debate. Unfortunately, the member for Kitchener -- and he has been here for over two years -- still does not understand the rules of the House. We agreed, as House leaders, to debate free trade for one day and then refer it to a committee and study it, and then we were brought in a resolution that said, “Condemn it and vote on it.”

So my leader said: “No. Here, we will give you our resolution, but you don’t have to vote on it.” There is no vote on an emergency debate. That was our way of living up to the commitment of having one day’s debate without a vote on it, as we all agreed on.

The member for Kitchener, when he understands the rules of the House, will understand. Even though the Premier said, “Guys, yell this at them” -- see, the Premier does not know that, either, when we first mention it. The Premier does not know many of the rules of the House. Otherwise, he would not have undermined his House leader so badly.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: So you’re saying he wasn’t serious.

Mr. Harris: I am saying he presented it for consideration but not to vote on it.

There are a few other little things I do want to get on the record before I turn it over to my colleague the member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling). There are a few things that I do not think are on the record yet, and they have to do with North Bay and they have to do with northern Ontario. I want to refer to a couple of those, if I may. I want to mention a few industries in North Bay:

Shadwood Industries, a joint venture with a United Kingdom firm and a Toronto firm to manufacture battery chargers in Canada. The company now exports from England to North America; 90 per cent of the market is the United States. They want to manufacture somewhere in North America to service the North American market. They chose North Bay -- 130 jobs. For us, that is like Toronto getting 50,000 jobs. You would think it had some impact, those of you who are from Toronto. It has a major impact on my community. They are under construction. If they did not have guaranteed access to the American market, could they afford to set up a plant in North Bay? Of course not. They would either have to continue servicing from England or they would have to locate in the United States.

Styrotech Industries: up to 30 jobs. It has just announced it is coming to North Bay, manufacturing Styrofoam products for the North American market. If they do not have the United States market, are they going to locate in North Bay? No; they cannot afford to.

These companies cannot locate in communities of northern Ontario just to service northern Ontario or just to service a regional market. They can if it is a North American market or a global market, but if it is to service just Ontario, if you want to be the little mouse and just service Ontario, there is only one place you can locate economically. It is in Toronto; it is in the Golden Horseshoe.

That is why we have had difficulty attracting industry to northern Ontario, but now through a concentrated effort -- I am talking about secondary manufacturing. We have the forestry jobs, although they are threatened if we cannot at least maintain the status quo or gain assured access. We have the mining jobs. But we do not have many secondary manufacturing jobs and we are starting to get them. We have worked hard.

Former governments have given money for infrastructure. Former governments have given money for incentive loans. This current government has maintained those incentives, as has the federal government, but you have to have the market. When you can get the North American market, then you can afford to locate in the smaller areas in northern Ontario. You cannot do it just for the northern Ontario market, and if it is only for Ontario, it is more economical to be in southern Ontario.

I have Borden Chemical, the same. I have Dupont Canada Inc., the same; particularly the operation Coutts took over. That is the former adviser to Pierre Elliott Trudeau. He took over the Fabrene operation of Dupont. I want to tell members why Dupont sold. Dupont sold the Fabrene company -- it had to be to a smaller Canadian company -- because it had so many deals with other American companies that it could not compete in the United States market.

It could do what it wanted in Canada and it got the Canadian market. Then we heard rumours it was going to shut down. Then we heard rumours about this and that. But it could not compete because it had noncompeting clauses with companies in the United States. Now it has been sold to a Canadian holding company headed by Mr. Coutts and now it can compete in the United States. I know the management sees a bright future for expansion of this company into new markets in the United States. That is what we are trying to secure.

Reichhold chemicals, the same. I was going to say Bavarian Meat Products -- I want to mention them because they are good supporters -- but I think they can live with or without free trade. They service mostly the northern Ontario market.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: Whom do they support?

Mr. Harris: They have been very supportive of my efforts, as have most Liberals in my area. That is why I get elected. There are more Liberals than Conservatives there.

L. E. Hansman Equipment; Feldcamp Equipment; L. H. D. Equipment Ltd.. L. H. D. Equipment Ltd. has grown since 1983 from some 30 employees to 95 employees. It is a fantastic success story. Most of that growth was to the export market, much of it to the United States. T. K. Hydraulics: The Premier himself gave the young owner an award. It relies on trade to the US. You have to have access to the American market.

I could go on, I suppose, with a number of other companies. We do not have a lot of big ones. We have a lot of small ones. Schauenburg Industries; its big problem now is that the government wants to give a grant to a competitor. It is going to create five jobs and take 10 away from them. Another thing this government does not seem to do very well is screen the grants it fritters away and wastes -- R. A. Warren Equipment; J. S. Redpath, a strong international firm; Pilot Diamond Tools; Patrick Harrison Co. Ltd.

1610

Mr. Pope: That would be a refreshing change from what we’ve seen over there.

Mr. Harris: That is right. There are a number of companies in the United States.

I mentioned at the start, though, the first two companies because they are new, because they are coming with access to the North American market. They have to have the American market. Our economic development department will tell you we have a number of contacts with German companies, with other European companies, with Korean investors and with business people. We have had several delegations to North Bay.

We are looking at the Pacific Rim companies that are looking to locate somewhere to manufacture for the North American market. They are not going to come here for the Canadian market. Unless we have that guaranteed access, unless we have this free trade deal, these companies are not going to come to Canada.

If they have a choice between Canada and the United States, where are they going to go? I tell members, most of them like Canada. Our international image is a strong, positive image. They think of Canada as a winner. They want to come here, but they cannot come here if they cannot have access to the American market.

If my friends are successful, if they are able to block this free trade deal, if it does not go through, we are going to be far worse off. Industries like these are not going to move into Canada; they are going to move to the United States and the jobs are going to be created there, because you cannot set up a manufacturing operation economically for 25 million and compete with a company that sets up for 250 million or 300 million. That is the reality.

I could mention some editorials in the North Bay Nugget. It is not likely that anybody else here refers to the North Bay Nugget.

“One thing is sure about the free trade deal -- very few Canadians will ever completely understand it.” That is the case with much of what we do. “It is reputed to comprise 1,000 pages.” It goes on: “Above all else, Canadians have to retain an open mind. It may be the best thing since sliced bread, or the worst, but it is too important for emotion or prejudice. There is only one question: Taking everything into consideration, is it a good deal for Canada or not?” I ask members to take everything into consideration.

What else have we had from this Premier when they have asked northerners to consider this? I want to show members two headlines. Northern Ontario Business is one of the best-read newspapers in northern Ontario, certainly by business people, with one of the best understandings of what is good for business in northern Ontario. “Premier Lets Us Down on Trade”; that is what northern Ontario business people think of this Premier.

Then what does the Premier say? He says, “North gets Nothing from Free Trade Agreement.” He brings it down here and tells the Minister of Northern Development (Mr. Fontaine): “Shut your yap. Take this, flash that around in the caucus. I have spoken. Never mind what Northern Ontario Business says. Never mind what the companies in northern Ontario say. Never mind what the Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association says. Never mind what the northern chambers of commerce tell you. Never mind what all the other opinion is, I have spoken.” He does this House, he does the members, a disservice when he does that.

I wanted to refer to one other article, by Christopher A. Sarlo, who gave a viewpoint on free trade on page 5, Monday, December 28. Mr. Sarlo is a professor at Nipissing University College:

“The best way to understand the gains from free trade is to imagine a society with no trade. In such a society each family must be self-sufficient; it must produce whatever it consumes. What would living standards be like in this society? What would be the state of development of science, medicine, the arts and education? Now, open up this society to free trade; quickly, individuals begin to specialize in producing those things they are particularly good at and use the income they earn from this activity to purchase the things that others produce. Specialization yields tremendous gains in economic efficiency. Far more is produced than consumed, less effort is required to earn a living and, therefore, more time can be devoted to activities other than substance.”

It carries on. I am sure members can visualize, as they take it from there.

The reason we can have the programs that we have, the lifestyle that we have, the Canadian culture, our identity, is all embodied in our ability to produce more than we consume and the ability to trade and find people to buy our goods. It is a good article. I will photocopy it and share it with anyone who would like to read it. I do not want to take the time in the House to read it all. I think that is the gist of it.

I want to be clear that I am expressing the opinion of Christopher Sarlo. He criticizes the deal for a number of reasons. He criticizes it because it does not do away with marketing boards, he criticizes it because it protects the beer industry, he criticizes it for all of those things. He would have the deal go much further. Some of us recognize the realities and realize that at this particular stage it probably cannot go any further. Once we take over the United States, it can. I say that tongue in cheek, but I say it as I close because that is the difference between those who look positively at life and at themselves, as individuals, as companies, as a province, as a nation, and those who see themselves as less than what they are.

Mr. Laughren: That is a bit much.

Mr. Harris: If the member had been here for all of my remarks he would understand.

Mr. Laughren: I was.

Mr. Harris: I believe that, and I believe it is important and leads to an important quality of life and an important quality of lifestyle that we enjoy in Canada.

I conclude by once again summarizing. The process is wrong. The process violates the rights of all the members of this chamber, and I ask them to reflect on that. This resolution is wrong on its own merits. The principle of the resolution is wrong. The intent of the resolution is wrong. I ask all members of the Legislature to reflect on the unfortunate fact that we have to vote on it today and to reflect on the wrongness of the resolution itself. Since we are now debating the amendment, I ask all members to vote against the amendment as well, as they reflect on this particular deal.

1620

Mr. Sterling: It is indeed an opportunity, which I believe all members of the Legislature should have, to speak on this most important topic, this most important agreement that we have entered into. I want to urge my Liberal caucus colleagues across the way; I want to put these words to them: “Let’s avoid a hasty or close-minded rejection of the ideals and aims of this accord. It is worth a careful second look.”

That is what we are asking for in the Progressive Conservative caucus. We are saying to the members across the way: “Let’s look at this deal. Let’s sit down in the committee, look at it thoroughly and have a reasoned look at it. We can then come back here, speak about it and then let’s vote on it.”

The members might be interested to know who said that. It was a Liberal MPP, the member for Etobicoke-Humber (Mr. Henderson). He said he wanted to look at the deal. It was one of their Liberal colleagues who said let’s not reject this deal outright, let’s have a look at it, let’s deal with it in a reasonable and logical fashion.”

The date of that is December 30, 1987. It says, “Liberal MPP Believes in Free Trade.” I guess we should stand and say, on behalf of my colleague the honourable House leader, who yesterday talked about 93 trained seals, I think we only have 92 trained seals. At least one of them speaks and thinks for himself, and is willing to put forward his ideas.

I would like to say that I am proud of the participation that the caucus members of the Progressive Conservative Party have put forward in this debate. I believe all but two or three of the members of this caucus have seen fit to enter the debate and put forward their remarks.

I note as well that many of the members of the New Democratic Party have put forward their case as well.

I would have liked to have heard more of our Liberal members talk on this particular issue. I realize it must be difficult for them because I get the distinct feeling, as I just read from one of the braver members of the Liberal caucus who put his remarks down in public, that many really do believe, as does the member for Etobicoke-Humber, that they are searching for that brass ring to which the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve) referred a few days ago.

The debate on free trade in this free trade agreement is difficult for the public to understand. That is understandable as well, because this bilateral trade agreement that we have been talking about is indeed a complex legal document.

In reaching a fair agreement between two countries we cannot only look at tariffs at the border. We must ensure that other rules within our countries, the negotiating countries, do not negate in a backhanded way the intention of the agreement. So the choice of giving away some of our rights of self-determination in order to secure foreign trading markets is not to be done without a great deal of thought and concern.

This idea of giving up some of our right to govern ourselves is not unique to this particular instance, or to any one of the three political parties that are involved in this debate in this Legislature. In fact, all of these three provincial parties have said that they support the multilateral negotiations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

Canada has been a member of GATT for over 40 years. That means we have been willing to give away some of our rights in this country to control our own destiny to an organization to negotiations where we only have one vote in about 90. Under GATT there is no choice; either one abides by its rules or extremely serious sanctions are taken against one. Yet both of the other parties in this Legislature, while supporting a very permanent trading arrangement under GATT, are frightened of a bilateral agreement with the United States.

We think this particular agreement will work to the benefit of both our countries. But just in case it does not, and if all of those frightening things do happen as they were conjured up during the election, we can terminate this agreement on six months’ notice. That is contained as the very last article of this particular agreement, article 2106.

It seems to me that there is an inconsistency in the position of both parties in terms of dealing with GATT and this bilateral agreement in two different ways. We have been fortunate in this province over the past years. We have reaped the benefits, in a large part, of our manufacturing industry here in Canada. Yet now we have portrayed, through our Premier, that our province is a parochial, small-town jurisdiction which gloats in its wealth at the expense of other provinces.

Unfortunately, those other provinces have not been as fortunate or as successful as we have been. We have benefited from free trade in the past through our automotive industry. But we do not want to give the rest of Canada the same opportunity. That is how we are seen from within our country by other provinces.

How are we seen from outside our country, from other countries’ point of view? I hope that they are not listening to the crying and complaining of our premiers and that this is not damaging our Canadian reputation as an international trading nation. I suspect that it is not, even though there has been no lack of trying on the part of our very own Premier.

I believe it must be encouraging for other countries to look at Canada and the United States as an example of how two friendly countries can enter into a substantial trade agreement when, in other parts of our world at this very time, countries are shooting at each other and are engaging in hostile activities.

There can be no doubt that any agreement must rely on some trust between the parties to the agreement. Our party still considers the United States as one of our closest friends and allies. When we try to write all of the matters that will happen in the future into an agreement, we know that cannot be done. We have to rely on good will and good faith in working out the details of this agreement.

We have been able to do that in this province. We have been able to do that with regard to the auto pact over the past 22 to 23 years. I am confident that we can work out any of the problems that we would face under this agreement and we will work to the benefit of both our countries.

As an aside, I would like to indicate the kind of paranoia that arose when the auto pact was introduced into this particular country. Some 22 years ago in the city of Oshawa, where I was working as an engineer at that time, I went to my first political meeting to hear Tommy Douglas come into a union hall and speak about the auto pact. I went because I heard that Tommy Douglas was a tremendous speaker. I was interested in the auto pact. I went to listen to Tommy Douglas speak about the auto pact and I heard him condemn the auto pact for over one hour. He was frightened of the effects of the auto pact. He said the New Democratic Party was against the auto pact at that time.

Shortly thereafter, the NDP changed its mind. It changed its mind because it decided that there was opportunity and a challenge which could be met. I would ask that they consider this agreement in the same light. I believe that this agreement is a challenge and that we can prosper and increase our ability to compete in the future. But we do not agree that we should have a treaty or a free trade agreement at any cost and we have been consistent in this attitude over the past year. We would have liked to have had more advantages for both Ontario and Canada, but we were under no illusions.

1630

I stated to the people of my constituency during the election that given the choice between the status quo we now have in Canada and Ontario and any new free trade agreement, I would choose the status quo, but the option of the status quo does not exist. We cannot choose the status quo. Things are changing in this world; things are changing in the United States which take us away from that choice.

I believe we should support this deal for three main reasons. I will refer to the protectionist sentiments in the United States, the need to secure existing and new access to markets, and the necessity of a strong economy to support our social security system.

Many other speakers have mentioned that there is a growing protectionist sentiment in the United States. In a speech in July 1987, Richard Gephardt, chairman of the Democratic caucus of the United States House of Representatives, said after bemoaning the unfair trading practices of other countries, “What is appropriate for America to do to open markets to the extent our markets are open?” He went on further, “It is not a question any longer of whether we should do something to be tougher to open those markets; the question is what to do.”

In a speech to a conference sponsored by the trade policy committee of our caucus in April 1987, Congressman Donald Bonker, chairman of the subcommittee on international policy and trade, said: “Many of our industries have been ravaged by imports. High unemployment occurs in almost all manufacturing sectors. Agricultural communities are hard pressed by overproduction and depressed prices. So the question isn’t whether we should ignore our trade deficit; the question is, how can we confront the problem?”

That is why this is the number one issue in terms of the United States Congress at this time.

I say it is better to be part of seeking a solution with the United States, rather than standing back criticizing and carping and coming up with no solid proposals how to solve this problem for both trading partners, and that has been the sorry record of this provincial government over the past eight months.

The second reason for support is our need to secure the existing markets we enjoy with the United States and to gain access to more markets in the United States. At the present time, 90 per cent of our exports from this province go to the United States. We have enjoyed an almost-free-trade environment at this time. It is estimated that 85 per cent of all goods from Ontario now pass the border with minimal or no tariffs.

Experience has shown over the past decade that as tariffs have fallen under the GATT negotiations, Ontario’s economy has improved. Even our weakest sectors have been able to cope. That fact, as a matter of record, is in one of the government reports that this government has selectively released to us.

Why, then, is there such paranoia about this agreement? I suspect it is paranoia to win votes, not to save Ontario’s economy. I suspect Liberals sat down and said, “Is it easier to support the Prime Minister at this time” -- I am talking about the summertime when an election was called – “or is it easier to scare the devil out of the people of Ontario?” I believe the Liberal Party, going into that election, chose the latter. I must admit it worked.

Under this agreement, Canada will have the right to participate in a process dealing with American firms which step out of line, and we will receive more favourable treatment regarding tariffs being imposed in the future. Arguments which might have been valid in the 1960s and 1970s are no longer valid for the 21st century, when dealing with trade practices with the United States. Like it or not, we are now part of a global economy. We can no longer pander to protectionists and bury our heads in the sand. If we are going to continue to enjoy the standard of living we enjoy today, we have to become more efficient and more competitive in what we do.

This brings me to my third point in support of this agreement. We must seek new ways to support the existing social security system we have in place. We are fortunate in our country to have a system of social benefits which enhances the living style of all our people, be they rich, middle-income or poor. But where does a social security system come from? It does not come from government. It does not come from politicians. It does not come from Parliament. It comes from the taxpayers. It comes from the people of Canada in the taxes they pay each year. We can only afford to pay those taxes if we have an efficient, productive economy which produces the wealth to support that system.

This is particularly true in our country, for our population is ageing and fewer and fewer taxpayers will be left to support the system. We must be able to compete in a world market and we cannot do that with a market of 26 million people. If we gain access, as we will through this free trade agreement, we will have an additional 300 million people to sell to: the wealthiest market in the free world.

Mainly for these three reasons -- to help fight the protectionist sentiments of the US Congress, to allow us to enjoy existing markets in the United States and to look to new markets there, and to give us the kind of vibrant 21st-century economy we need to support our social system -- I support this agreement and that is why I am going to vote against this government resolution.

As I said at the outset, we would have liked an agreement which was stronger in certain areas but we still believe this is a good deal for both Canada and Ontario. As a matter of fact, we also believe it is a good deal for the United States. There is nothing to be ashamed of there.

Where do we in Ontario go from here in dealing with the free trade question? This government’s tactics are confused and in retreat. This Premier has lost the fight and continues to show he is a sore loser, as does the federal Liberal leader and the federal New Democratic Party leader.

I might add that our Prime Minister probably should be thanking all three of these political leaders for his recent gains in the polls, because it seems that the harder the Premier fights this particular agreement, the harder Ed Broadbent fights this agreement and the harder John Turner fights this agreement, the more our Prime Minister wins with the people of Canada.

Canadians and Ontarians have now realized that our Prime Minister was right and that he has persisted in showing leadership in spite of substantial opposition. In a political sense, I can only hope that the provincial Liberals and the Premier prolong the debate on free trade, but in another sense I hope they will come to their senses and look at this agreement in a practical sense.

1640

As a constitutional expert told the standing committee on finance and economic affairs last month, the fight is over. The United States and other countries have every right to believe that what was signed by our federal government is a good and binding treaty. Then of what use is this present resolution of general condemnation of the free trade agreement, and of what use is it to ask the standing committee on finance and economic affairs to rehash all the old arguments, when the deal is done?

Our party sees another opportunity in the process. Why do we not turn to the process of implementing this agreement? Let us start to plan for those workers who are going to need help in readjusting. Let us assist communities which may be affected by this agreement. Most of all, let us help our industries and our people take advantage of the tremendous opportunities that are presented to us on a plate by this agreement. This agreement can provide us with a higher standard of living in Ontario and Canada in the future if we tackle it as a challenge and meet it with optimism.

That is where this party has been and continues to be. We are proud of it. We are optimistic about our future here in Ontario. We believe that our people can meet the challenge and become more competitive and we believe this agreement offers our people that opportunity. Both of the other parties have criticized free trade over the past year without offering a real alternative to the facts and the history that are present at our time. The truth is that there is no alternative but to reach some kind of trading agreement with the United States.

I respect the New Democratic Party’s opposition because it is based on philosophy, but unfortunately our conclusion is that the Liberal Party’s opposition was motivated by political considerations which led to a substantial majority on September 10. We only hope that the Liberals will now see the error of their way, that they will take the free trade agreement as a challenge and that they will now consider the interests of Ontarians and Canadians in that light.

Mr. Laughren: I am indeed pleased to be concluding this debate on behalf of the New Democrats. I consider this to have been a historic debate and, believe it or not, I have enjoyed it. I think there have been some very good speeches, some very strange speeches and some even stranger interjections. I will not comment on those, though. I would like to let historians, who have a talent for dealing with the sublime and the ridiculous, try to weave together the speeches and interjections and see what they can come up with, because they will surely provide them with some comment on this amazing chamber.

I hope, as well, that historians will not overlook the delicious irony of the Liberals opposing free trade and the Tories in Ontario supporting free trade. I am not a historian but I have read enough of it to remember Sir John A. Macdonald and his National Policy, which clearly set up tariffs in order to protect Canadian industry and supply goods to the Canadian market.

Mind you, in those days they did not believe in exporting very much. They simply wanted to cater to the Canadian market and I do not agree with that. But at least in those days they had a vision. They had an economic or industrial strategy and that was to supply the Canadian domestic market with Canadian-produced goods. At least it was a vision and a strategy. When I look 100 years later, I see the Liberal Party opposing free trade, although I think everyone remembers, and it has been recalled by a number of members in speeches, the election in 1911.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Reciprocity.

Mr. Laughren: Reciprocity, another code word for free trade, in which Laurier got his butt kicked, as the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) would say.

We have witnessed a very strange turn of events in that regard, almost as strange as the event that is going to take place later this afternoon at about six o’clock. I think that since all of Ontario will be viewing the event on the legislative channel, there should be an explanation as they watch the spectacle of New Democrats, who are opposed to free trade, standing with the Tories, who support free trade, to vote against a Liberal motion condemning free trade. This is going to be something to behold and I think viewers are entitled to an explanation.

I will begin with a reminder of what the government resolution is. It has been some time since we dealt with it. This is the resolution put by the government. I am glad there are so many Liberal members here this afternoon because I think they would agree, following some of their speeches, that the amendment we put was absolutely necessary in order to reinforce the very speeches they made.

This is the resolution put by the government:

“That in the opinion of the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario the proposed trade agreement between Canada and the United States fails to address Canada’s needs and goals, while making significant concessions which could prove costly to Canadians. Specifically:

“The proposed agreement fails to secure access to the US market for Canadian goods and services and provides no assurance of fairer treatment for Canadian exporters. It provides Canadians with virtually no relief from the US trade laws and regulations that are being used to harass them.

“Under the proposed agreement, Canadian exporters could still be penalized in the United States as a result of Canadian policies and programs to promote industrial development, reduce regional disparities and manage our natural resources.

“This agreement would relinquish our ability to pursue an independent energy policy in order to ensure security of supply or enhance regional development.

“This agreement would significantly reduce our ability to ensure that Canadians benefit from US investment and proposed takeovers of Canadian-owned firms.

“This agreement would undercut safeguards which have ensured the existence of a dynamic Canadian auto industry and reduce Canada’s ability to attract offshore auto industry investment.

“This agreement would eliminate tariffs simultaneously in both countries, despite the fact that Canadian tariffs start at a higher level.

“This agreement would threaten the existence of significant sectors of the agriculture and food processing industries.

“This agreement would require the federal government to take ‘all necessary measures’ to implement its provisions, including infringement on the provincial capacity to respond to the needs of Ontario citizens.

“Under this agreement Canada would give up far more than it gained.

“For these reasons, the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario opposes this agreement as detrimental to Canada’s sovereignty and economic interests, and will not be bound to implement those aspects which fall under provincial jurisdiction. We urge the Parliament of Canada to reject the agreement.”

That is the motion put by the government. When you read that, there is no question that the government is opposed to the free trade agreement. I do not think anybody has any illusions about that. But we have moved an amendment because we know from the experience of the last two and a half years that one has to read very, very carefully everything that the Premier says. Everything he stands for dealing with free trade has to be examined under a microscope because he will find a way of getting out from commitments he has made. That is why we, as a party, moved an amendment. I will not read the entire thing but some of the things we are calling for the government to do, as an amendment to the motion or the resolution I just read.

We are calling “on the government of Ontario to take the following immediate steps: a constitutional challenge to the agreement in the Supreme Court because of this agreement’s infringement on provincial jurisdiction; a message to the administration and Congress of the United States expressing our opposition to the free trade agreement; an unequivocal commitment not to legislate, regulate or co-operate in any way to implement the agreement in any area of provincial jurisdiction, whether directly or indirectly; a commitment to take such other political and economic measures within Ontario’s powers, which would have the effect of blocking this agreement and a message to the Parliament of Canada urging rejection of this agreement.”

1650

That is the amendment that will be voted on this afternoon. I would simply ask those government members who spoke, some of them extremely well -- and it was obvious that they spoke from where they felt; they really felt seriously about this matter and they made some very good speeches -- if they really feel as seriously about it as their speeches seemed to indicate. Then I would urge them to think about this amendment, because it does not allow the government simply to say, “We are against it”; it requires the government to take some specific action to prove it is against this free trade agreement. That is what it does. Surely, that is not asking too much.

When I look at the chronology of the Premier during the last couple of years, it is truly startling. Members recall at the beginning he said: “Let’s let the free trade negotiations go on, because after all, we do not know, maybe we will benefit from them. We do not want to prejudge.” So he allowed that to happen.

Then, as time went by, when we were pressing him here in the Legislature last spring, he said: “Don’t you worry. I will veto it. Ontario will veto the agreement if there is any problem. If it is not in our best interests, we will veto it.”

Time went on a little further and the election campaign came around and he said: “Don’t you worry. There are six conditions that we will apply to this agreement and unless these six conditions are met we will not support this agreement.” Of course, he had already told us he had veto power.

These are the six conditions: no deal without a dispute settlement mechanism; no deal unless we can support regional development; no deal if it hurts farmers; no deal if we cannot screen foreign investment; no deal if it threatens our cultural identity; no deal if it guts the auto pact.

That is what the Premier said during the summer. After the summer, we came back here after the election and he said: “Don’t be hasty now. Don’t do anything precipitate. After all, we haven’t seen the agreement.” Then the tentative agreement came out and he said: “Don’t worry. It is not what we want, but we have not seen the final agreement yet. Don’t worry about that.” So we got the final agreement and the Premier said: “Wait a minute now, you are being a little hasty. After all we don’t want to challenge it, because we have not seen any implementation legislation yet. So don’t worry.”

The next step of his reassurance was: “Wait a minute. I am going to have the Attorney General” -- talk about reassuring – “do a constitutional audit regarding provincial jurisdiction.” It just seems as though, every month that goes by, he puts another obstacle in front of doing anything. So far, he has done nothing.

We feel it is time the government was given some backbone. We think the amendment to the government resolution gives the government that kind of backbone, gives it some kind of action that it can take.

I think most government members would agree when they look at the resolution that it does not require them or any minister or the Premier to do anything; absolutely nothing. They can pack up their books tonight or tomorrow night, go home and forget about free trade, because it will be entirely in the hands of Prime Minister Mulroney. This government will not have to do a single thing, because this resolution does not call upon it to do anything; no action.

Interjection.

Mr. Laughren: I am sorry, I cannot believe the member.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: It hasn’t happened yet, Gordon.

Mr. Laughren: Our resolution calls on the government to launch a constitutional challenge. It calls on the government to say to Washington and to Ottawa that Ontario is opposed to this agreement and we will not implement enabling legislation. That is what it says.

I ask the members to think about the two resolutions, because that is what we are voting on later on this afternoon. If the government is really opposed to free trade, not just rhetorically but really opposed to it, what is offensive about our amendment? Why would members find fault with it? It does not urge any form of civil disobedience by anyone. It does not even show any disrespect to Ottawa or Washington. It does not ask Ontario to step beyond its jurisdictional powers, not a bit. It does not in any way ask this government to go beyond what the Premier has said at one point or another in the last two and a half years, and our resolution is not offensive in its rhetoric and it is not unrealistic in its expectations or its demands.

If that is the amendment and they really believe what they say in the speeches they have made, and if they really believe what the Premier says in the speeches he has made in the last couple of years, I cannot think of a single reason why they would be voting against our amendment to their resolution. I cannot think of a single reason, but they may have their reasons.

Our resolution simply requires the government to reinforce its rhetoric with some action.

I listened to a lot of the speeches made in this debate and I really meant it when I said I thought there had been some good speeches. I wish I could have heard even more of them. I hope those people who made the speeches meant it and will really think about voting for the amendment. I do not want to spend a lot of time on the evils of the free trade agreement, because that has been done by a lot of members, but there are some things that I do think have to be said about this agreement.

First of all, it is not simply about trade. It is truly a comprehensive agreement that deals with a lot more than trade. That is why, when we talk about sovereignty, when we talk about cultural industries, when we talk about regional development, those are not goods or services that are traded across a border. Those reflect our way of life and the way in which we have determined we want to run this country. That is why we are so concerned about it.

If it is simply a case of lowering tariffs, if it is simply a case of having a whole series of auto pacts, which is more managed trade than free trade, we could have a civilized debate on it. But that is not what this free trade is about. If this was setting up a series of sectors in which to lower tariffs between Canada and the United States, we really could have an enlightened debate. I think some good things would come from it. We would support that kind of a debate. As a matter of fact, we should have one in Ontario.

But this kind of comprehensive agreement goes way beyond the trade of goods and services between Canada and the United States. That bothers us a great deal and I think most members have read statements from south of the border where representatives down there talk quite clearly about how they see economic union between Canada and the United States.

The question of regional disparities should bother every member who does not live in the Golden Horseshoe. Those people who live in eastern Ontario, northern Ontario, I suppose southwestern Ontario as well, should think about what it means.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: And rural Ontario.

Mr. Laughren: Rural Ontario. Whenever the government decides it wants to have a regional development policy to bring other parts of the province into the economic mainstream, it could be challenged by the United States.

The stumpage fees issue which led to the imposition of the tax on softwood lumber could have been regarded by us as a regional development policy. I happen to have regarded the stumpage fees as being too low, quite frankly. But that is not the issue. The issue is that we at least should have the right to set those stumpage fees too low, if we want to, for regional development purposes.

When we get into this free trade agreement, every time we try and do something to remove regional disparities, we are going to be in trouble. Surely to goodness members from outside Toronto should be worried about that.

Canada, despite the reassurances from the members of the Conservative caucus, failed to secure its main objective of the whole concept and that was secure access to the United States market and exemption from US trade law, particularly countervail and the antidumping provisions. We did not get that, so why are they so excited about what we did get? The dispute settlement process provides almost nothing that is not there already.

1700

On social programs, New Democrats feel very strongly that the social safety net and the programs which exist in Canada are quite foreign to the American way of life and we feel very, very strongly that they must be protected. I hope all members realize that social programs can clearly be seen as a subsidy and challenged. There have been all sorts of statements in that regard as well, that unemployment insurance to fishermen on the east coast, unemployment insurance benefits anywhere, and medicare premiums paid for, can be challenged as subsidies.

Earlier this afternoon we tried to raise in the Legislature, with the Premier and other ministers, a number of areas where we feel action must be taken in order to protect our jurisdiction. We received virtually no assurances from the Premier that he was prepared to do anything about it.

On matters of provincial jurisdiction, we are worried that because the free trade agreement will demand that the federal government bring provinces into the ambit of the free trade agreement as well, this will in effect have a major bearing on provincial jurisdiction. As a matter of fact, article 103 states that the federal government must ensure provincial compliance with the deal. That in itself seems to me to be an encroachment on provincial jurisdiction. That is simply not appropriate.

There are a number of things that bother us about the free trade agreement. Part of it, we feel, has to do with sovereignty and part of it has to do with the way of life of Canadian and Ontario citizens, but also there is the whole question of an economy like Canada’s trying to make a free trade arrangement with an economy like the United States.

I do not believe that we are better or worse Canadians than those who support the free trade agreement. We do not look any more fashionable draped in the Canadian flag than does any other group of Canadians. I do not think I look better in a flag than the member for Carleton does, but there is a fundamental difference in the way in which we believe we can best serve Canada and Ontario.

I do not believe it is unfair to compare the vision we have of our country and our province with what I think is the vision the Conservative Party has for Ontario and Canada. As a matter of fact, I thought the member for Nipissing put it very articulately this afternoon in terms of the vision of the Tory party.

The Conservative vision -- I am sure he will correct me if I am wrong -- is one that relies upon the marketplace to set priorities, to allocate resources and to determine industrial winners and losers. That discipline of the marketplace has a certain what I would call primeval appeal, which is perhaps why it is called Rambo economics. It really is a survival-of-the-fittest ideology. It is a very strong ideology. It is a clear ideological view of the world and I give the Conservative Party credit for being consistent with what that party is supposed to be all about namely, adherence to the marketplace as the major decision-maker.

New Democrats have a vision that is more interventionist, that believes people who are elected to do so should allocate resources and at least partly determine which industrial sectors are important to us as a sovereign nation and consequently need support and protection if necessary. This view of our country requires policies and commitments that minimize regional disparities, that fight for Canadian control of key industrial sectors and that encourage and promote a unique Canadian cultural identity. Free trade is truly a Conservative vision of how our country should function, and for that I give them full marks for their consistency.

I believe the Royal Commission on Economic Union and Development Prospects for Canada -- the Macdonald commission, as it is known -- provided the most singularly important observation in this entire debate. I will paraphrase it. What they said was that unless this country launches a proposal for free trade, there would be in the years to come increasing demands for a planned economy. As soon as the federal Conservatives saw that warning, it was like a red flag being raised. They immediately launched the program for free trade between Canada and the United States.

I really and truly believe that comment contains the kernel of truth behind the entire debate. It is little wonder that the Tories embraced enthusiastically the free trade concept while Liberals agonized in what I would call the throes of ideological schizophrenia. I am glad the member for Etobicoke-Humber is here to correct me if that is the wrong way to use that expression.

The New Democrats, along with a lot of other people, immediately launched a country-wide campaign in opposition to the entire free trade agreement.

We oppose this free trade agreement and we oppose this Mickey Mouse resolution that has been proposed by the government. We challenge the government to support our amendment and honour its very specific instructions. We challenge the government to initiate policies that clearly challenge the free trade agreement in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

What we tried to do this afternoon in question period was to say to the Premier and to other ministers: “Before this year is up, bring in legislation that lays out areas that should be in provincial jurisdiction. Introduce legislation that makes that clear. For example, bring in a bill that allows for the pricing of hydro in northern Ontario to stimulate regional development in the north. Make it a piece of legislation. Bring in legislation that controls day care. Bring in legislation that controls nursing homes, so that we retain control and have sectors that are models we are proud of, that come from us.” I can tell members that the response by the Premier was negligible this afternoon.

I come from a community where for 50 years, Falconbridge has been shipping its minerals to Norway for processing, mainly because of the exemption that the government gives it to do that. The Mining Act says they should not do it and the cabinet gives them an exemption.

What we are saying to the Premier is: “End that exemption. Make it a challenge to the free trade agreement. Do it in several areas. Stake out your legislative independence and say, ‘We are going to introduce this legislation, we are going to make it the law of Ontario, because we believe this is provincial jurisdiction.’ And make sure this happens in 1988, because 1988 is when the free trade agreement is implemented.”

I do hope that the Premier will take this seriously, because what that would mean is that we would have the legislation this year. If people want to challenge our right to have that legislation, whether it be the United States of America or whether it be the federal government, let them come to us with the challenge. It should not be the other way around. We cannot even convince the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) that there should be a challenge from Ontario on the free trade agreement. If he is so squeamish about challenging the federal government on that, then why not bring in legislation that is ours and let the federal government challenge us on our jurisdictional right to do that. That is what should be done.

We challenge the government to begin the process of removing regional disparities in Ontario, to begin building a social network second to none anywhere, to have an informed debate within Ontario on our own economic development prospects, and to put behind us once and for all our sorry history of neglect of those people and regions that are least able to fend for themselves.

I urge members of the assembly to reject the government resolution and to support the amendment put forth by New Democrats.

1710

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I am pleased, on behalf of the government, to wind up this very historic debate and to put into the record some of our concerns and some of our aspirations regarding the economic life of the province. Through the resolution in this House, the Legislature of Ontario is making it known to the people of the province and the people of Canada that it will not support a free trade deal which fails to meet certain conditions necessary to maintain economic and social stability and protect Canada’s national sovereignty.

The free trade agreement, like the elements of the agreement initialled earlier, fails to satisfy the concerns that the government of Ontario has expressed on these matters and raises additional concerns. The government of Ontario has been forced to come to the conclusion that the free trade agreement that Canada has negotiated with the United States is not in the best interests of Canada. This conclusion, and the decision to condemn the free trade agreement through a resolution in this House, was one that this government has taken only after intense and serious consultation and analysis.

I think it is important that members of this House know that Ontario initially supported the free trade negotiations in principle at the first ministers’ conference in Halifax in November 1985. The Premier took this position because Ontario favours efforts to reduce barriers to trade and to expand trade opportunities whenever this is possible. I think members should also be aware that trade with the United States is absolutely vital to the interests of the people of Ontario. Trade, as part of our gross domestic product, represents 30 per cent of what we do. For every dollar that the people of Ontario and Canada have in their pockets, 30 cents of that came as a direct result of our trade, and 90 per cent of our trade is with the United States. Ontario is the largest trading partner the United States has, and they are ours.

I think it is important to know that although trade represents 30 per cent of our gross domestic product, it represents only 10 per cent of the US gross domestic product. Of that 10 per cent, 22 per cent is trade with Canada, and the bulk of it with Ontario. So we have everything to gain and every reason to want to support additional trade with the United States. We are not anti-American. As a matter of fact, we treasure our relationship with the United States. It is critical to the economic wellbeing of this province.

So where are we? Why are we, as a province, refusing to endorse this agreement?

Canada began these negotiations seeking to eliminate US actions against Canada which harass Canadian exports and reduce incentives to invest in Canada. The federal government assured the provinces that an agreement which did not provide assured access to US markets, including circumvention of the application of trade remedy laws while maintaining Canada’s ability to promote regional development, would be unacceptable to Canada. Simon Reisman, our chief trade negotiator on behalf of the federal government, said that unless we got security of access, the agreement would not be worth the paper it was written on. That was a very, very major concession, and certainly one that we all endorse. We knew that the major thrust of this negotiation was to get security of access, and in order to get that, we were certainly prepared to give up certain things.

As the federal government’s negotiating position became clear to the provinces, Ontario began to have reservations about these negotiations. Ontario’s analysis indicated that tariff elimination would have serious consequences for Ontario industries without provisions which would maintain the auto pact safeguards and measures to address sensitive sectors. I think it is important to know that on July 3 the Prime Minister of Canada wrote to the Premier of Ontario and assured him that the auto pact would not be on the table, that it would not be part of the negotiations.

Ontario was particularly concerned that whatever agreement was actually reached should preserve Canada’s ability to determine social, cultural and regional development policies. Canadian politicians and officials assured the provinces, and the Canadian people, that these concerns -- the integrity of the auto pact, cultural sovereignty, regional development -- would be addressed in the negotiated agreements.

During the entire period of the negotiations, Ontario conducted a series of consultations with the private sector groups in order to determine the impact of the possible free trade agreement on the Ontario economy. The Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology used these consultations to evaluate the potential strengths and weaknesses of Ontario’s manufacturing and service industries and how they might respond to tariff reductions and a freer trade environment.

These consultations included a conference on free trade held by the ministry in March 1987, and it is through these consultations and the analysis conducted by the government that Ontario determined that sensitive sectors needed special consideration under any free trade agreement.

I think it is important to know that until that time there was pretty widespread consultation. Then things, as they say, began to happen. The principal forum of consultation with the provinces during the course of the negotiations was the quarterly first ministers’ meetings. These were supplemented with the regular meetings of the continuing committee on trade negotiations, made up of trade representatives from each province and federal officials. Ontario was represented by the Premier’s trade policy adviser, Robert Latimer. However, these mechanisms for consultations broke down in the final stages of the negotiations in October.

Both the Prime Minister and the premiers had authorized negotiations on investment limited strictly to trade-related investment measures. The provinces were informed that if energy was included in the free trade agreement, it would only be as part of the broader package. There would not be specific undertakings on energy.

The members have to understand that in September, when Mr. Reisman reported to the Prime Minister that the talks had broken down and he could no longer proceed, neither energy or the auto pact had been on the table. At that stage, the Prime Minister sent his chief political negotiators, Michael Wilson and Pat Carney, to Washington, and they came back with a deal.

To listen to Simon Reisman, they came back with auto pact plus. I would like to paint this scenario.

Until that point, we were assured the auto pact was not on the table. To listen to Simon Reisman, when they went down to Washington, the Americans got them in a room and said: “We would like to make this deal with you but we can’t, because we have the better of the auto pact deal. If you will agree to improve your position in the deal, we’re prepared to deal with you; otherwise, we’re not.”

That is his interpretation, that he got a better deal as a result of its not being on the table and, when they insisted it be on the table, it was better for us. We, of course, do not agree.

I also think it is important to know that Ontario is not opposed to free trade. Ontario, however, is opposed to the Canada-US free trade agreement, because our major objectives were not achieved and the costs are too high. We have said from the start: “This is a bad deal. We are opposed to this deal.”

What did we get? The key federal objective of obtaining secure and enhanced access to the US market has not been met by the proposed Canada-US free trade agreement. US countervailing duties and antidumping penalties can continue to be applied against Canadian exports in the same fashion as before this agreement. Moreover, the binational tribunal to appeal such duties fails to afford any net benefit beyond the current situation of appeal to US courts and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

It was interesting that during the debate, the members of the third party, particularly the leader, were trying to point out that, in effect, the dispute settlement mechanism was improved in the final text. In our opinion, it was not. If anything, what they have done is to add another layer of bureaucratic positioning, so that if you are not satisfied with the appeal panel and if you think they acted in a way that was not consistent with what they should have done, you can appeal it to another group of judges.

1720

The only positive thing about the appeal mechanism process was supposed to be its speed. The only thing that we could determine was better than what we had was that it might cut down the time for appeals from two years to one year. With this new layer, it just takes it back to where it was before.

Some people have argued that the free trade agreement is the best deal it was possible to negotiate. It is ironic that the feasible deal we have achieved is one which essentially preserves the status quo in terms of key Canadian objectives: to circumvent the application of US trade laws and to gain access to the US government procurement market.

I would also like to address very briefly the often said statement that we have a situation where we can never return to the status quo and that unless we do something, we are going to be subjected to all of this protectionism from the United States.

I personally am not convinced that is the case. We are the United States’ major trading partner. It is of as much interest to the United States to have us as its customers as it is for us to have them as our customers. That is something we have to take into consideration. It is to our mutual benefit to make sure that we reduce whatever frictions there are, and I reject those who feel that the border is going to close down.

I would also like to comment on what I consider to be a fallacy, in that there is a general assumption that there is an iron curtain that goes across the US-Canadian border, that there are 250 million people just sitting there waiting for us to sell things to them and that if only we can get this deal, everybody is going to prosper.

Members should understand that right now 80 per cent of all of the trade in goods and services between Canada and the United States is duty free, and those companies that are competitive and can compete are doing it now. It is also interesting to note that among all of the people who appeared before our cabinet subcommittee -- those were the people who were pro this deal, every one of them -- all they tried to say was: “All we want to do is keep the status quo. We don’t expect to do any more business, but without this deal we may do less.” It was like the parable in the Bible when they were looking for one honest man. I could not find one single person who would come forward and say to me: “Mr. Minister, if we can sign this deal, we are prepared to build a factory today. We are prepared to hire new employees today. We will do all of those things if only we can get this agreement.”

Every one of them said to me, those who were in favour, “No, we don’t expect to do any more business, but without this deal we may do less.” I am saying that is a serious consideration; without question, that is a serious consideration. But I think that in order to maintain the status quo, which is basically what we are talking about, we have paid a price that is far, far too high.

Because the dispute settlement mechanism will come into effect only in the final stage of the proceeding, Canadian exporters can still face a lengthy period of harassment through the administrative process. I think it is important to know that in all of the times that people made representations to me about the dispute settlement mechanism, nobody complained about the appeal process; they were not concerned about that. What they were concerned about was the administrative process whereby the US Department of Commerce and the International Trade Commission were harassing the exporters into the United States.

In the past year the United States launched over 600 actions under its trade remedy laws, Canada launched 30, the European Community launched five and Japan launched one. Now, when you look at those figures, it is obvious to anyone that trade remedy law is a part of US import-export control policy. The mere fact that an action is launched against a relatively small Canadian company is enough of a deterrent to keep it out of that market; it does not have the resources or the time, and that in itself is a way of keeping it out. That is what we are trying to address. The dispute settlement does not address that at all. I know that members can trot out their particular champion in the legal profession to say whether it is a good or a bad deal. Our particular champion said that, in their opinion, we have gained nothing in the way of dispute settlement, and that, of course, was one of the key things we were trying to gain.

When we talk about the omnibus trade bill that is wending its way through the US Congress, that in itself is going to be a very serious implication on Canada-US relations. When Ambassador Clayton Yeutter was in Toronto a few months ago, addressing the joint meeting of the Canadian Club and the Empire Club, he was asked specifically: “If the omnibus trade bill is passed, will it affect Canada, or will Canada be exempt?” He did not hesitate in the slightest. He said, “Canada will not be exempt and it will affect Canada.”

Now, that is a very, very serious situation. Surely members should know, because certainly the members of the third party -- in particular, the leader -- keep making a great point about the fact that the vote is seven to three in favour and why do we not get on side with the majority? I would like to address that question in a minute.

However, when we are talking about that seven majority, many of them are qualified. They are saying: “Yes, we will support it, provided we are not subject to the omnibus trade bill. Yes, we will support it, provided we can continue with our regional development programs.” That is something that I do not think the Canadian government can deliver. Some of those leaders are taking solace in the fact that they have a letter from the Prime Minister stating, “You have my assurance that these things will be done.” I can tell members that on July 3, Prime Minister Mulroney sent the Premier a letter assuring him that the auto pact would not be on the table, and members saw what happened there.

I do not want to direct this just at the leader of the third party, but I have some things I want to read into the record, to set the stage. I felt, and I did not want to interrupt him in his speech, that what he was saying was an absolute repudiation of his position in this House. Surely he does not expect us to say, “Because we have 94 members on this side, everything we do is right, and because he has only 16 members on his side everything he does is wrong.” What he is saying is: “If seven Premiers are in favour and three are opposed, surely you are in the wrong and the majority is in the right. Why do you not get on side?” If that is true, I would invite those 16 members to come and sit on this side of the House.

Mr. Jackson: You’ve got enough problems in caucus without us. You’ve got enough trouble.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I am prepared to invite those 19 as well.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: While I am commenting on the leader of the third party, I would be remiss if I did not put into the record some comments from the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) dealing with free trade.

I am sure most members have seen the article by David Crane in the Toronto Star today. The headline is, “The Sound of Tories Flip-Flopping on Free Trade.” What it says, and I hope members will bear with me --

Oh, the member in question has arrived, and I welcome him.

I hope members will bear with me as I read this into the record, but I really feel that I would be remiss if I let it go by without some official chronicling of it in the proceedings of this Legislature.

1730

Mr. Brandt: It was a good speech.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: It is still a good speech.

It says, “Take Andy Brandt, the personable leader of the Ontario Progressive Conservatives, who is now busy trumpeting the cause of Canada-US free trade.

“This is the same Andy Brandt who just over two years ago as Minister of Industry and Trade in the former Tory government campaigned against Canada-US free trade.”

Mr. Ferraro: Surely not; say it isn’t so.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: A different Andy Brandt.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: If I can have the forebearance of the members, I would like to read to them what he said.

“‘Taking the multilateral route in trade negotiations is the best long-term way for Canada and for Ontario to gain an improved share of world trade,’ Brandt argued as an Ontario cabinet minister. ‘For instance, Canada would likely have to pay a lot less for a rollback in US protectionism if more countries were at the negotiating table and, therefore, more trade concessions on the table.’

“Brandt worried that bilateral free trade could be highly damaging for Ontario. ‘We could be overwhelmed in high technology areas which would inhibit our overall ability to compete.... Already, we import heavily from the US in the medium to high technology sectors.’

“At the same time, US-owned multinationals might close down facilities in Ontario. ‘There could well be a greater incentive for a typical American company to supply our market by increasing its US output by as little as 10 per cent.’ Brandt said. ‘That could mean a considerable loss of jobs at the Canadian-based subsidiary.’”

If I could just depart from the text for a moment and tell members --

Mr. Brandt: I wish you would.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I am coming back to it.

At a recent meeting with the president of a worldwide food conglomerate that has a very major presence in Canada, he stated to us that in his opinion if this free trade agreement goes through, any food product that has a shelf life of three weeks or more would no longer be produced in Canada. He uses as an example -- I am glad to see that the leader of the third party two years ago had the foresight to anticipate what he was going to say -- that the Oreo cookie machine in Chicago just has to run for an extra 15 minutes a week to supply all of the Oreo cookies in Canada, and he felt --

Mr. Brandt: Is this the end of cornflakes?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Cornflakes are down the tube; the member is right.

Let us get back to the chronicle of the member for Sarnia.

“Brandt worried as well about how much progress Canada could make in dismantling US nontariff barriers. For example, Ontario wanted the US to drop its buy America requirement in urban transit.” Of course, they didn’t.

“‘But if it and other nontariff barriers are negotiable at all,’ Brandt warned, ‘the cost may be very high.’”

That, of course, has happened every time we wanted to deal with things that we had been promised. Much has been made of the Premier’s sort of change in position about being able to veto. We were told at one time that he could make the veto.

Another thing has been that when the deal was originally put to us, we were told we were going to have access to US defence procurement, a very, very, major, major benefit to producers in Canada. That, of course, was taken off the table.

We had an arrangement dealing with maritime provisions. When the going got tough, that was taken off the table. That is the sort of problem we have to deal with.

I want to continue with the member for Sarnia’s statement.

“For example, he said, ‘I’m talking about US pressures for policy harmonization in the name of a level playing field. That could be in areas such as labour, taxation, the regulatory environment and industrial assistance. Are we prepared to have less room to address uniquely Canadian and provincial needs in these sensitive areas?’

“In addition, he asked, ‘Would they want other concessions -- for instance” -- again, I have to compliment the former minister on his clairvoyance – “in industrial or energy policy...?”

Mr. B. Rae: I just want to know who his speechwriter was. I’ve got the answer. It’s the sa

me speechwriter, Monte. He just wrote the speech last night.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: That is right, the same guy.

Mr B. Rae: Am I wrong or is he still there?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Unfortunately, later on in the article, they refer to Hughie Segal, who, I think, was the writer. I can assure members that Hugh Segal is not writing my material.

Mr. Brandt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The minister is impugning the motives of a member of this House, namely myself, in indicating that I had little or no input into the actual writing of the particular speech he is quoting from extensively. I would like the minister to know that I do not remember that speech.

Mr. Speaker: Under which standing order is your point of order?

Mr. Brandt: Standing order 17(b). I stand corrected if it is not. I would just like to advise the honourable minister that I stand by everything I said in the speech that I did write. I would like him to carry on because any time he wants to quote me, I am delighted.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The article is quite extensive. I just want to quote one more line and then refer to a couple of other things. In it, he says that “these discussions...may seriously threaten our independence and sovereignty in the not-too-distant future,” and, “These hinge on the very stuff of our national survival and independence.”

I have an apology, actually. That may have been the same person who was writing, but it was Hugh Segal who said that.

The interesting thing is that the article concludes by saying: “Brandt and Segal are not alone in making these policy flip-flops. Mulroney, as well as cabinet ministers Joe Clark, Michael Wilson and David Crombie, all spoke against a deal while in opposition.”

I am sure everyone knows that when the now Prime Minister was running for the leadership of the federal Conservative Party, he came out unequivocally saying that there would never be a free trade deal and he was opposed to it.

Mr. Reville: Was that his bottom line?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: That was his bottom line.

Of particular importance to Ontario is the fate of the automotive industry, which directly or indirectly employs one in every five Ontarians. The free trade agreement in essence guts the auto pact. Again, those who are supporting the deal say it is auto pact plus. All I have to say is that the mere fact that the CAMI plant in Ingersoll, the Suzuki-General Motors plant, had to be god fathered by --

An hon. member: Grandfathered.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Grandfathered. I can tell members there had to be a godfather playing in that scenario to get that saved, because in conversations I had with the industry, it said the CAMI plant was gone. It was only after, I am sure, some severe arm-twisting by local MPs to say, “If that plant goes, we go, and you had better do something about it,” that it was grandfathered. But by implication the very fact that it was grandfathered sends a signal that a similar arrangement will not be tolerated. That in itself is a very serious concern.

We also have the only truly Canadian part of the auto industry, which is the Automotive Parts Manufacturers’ Association of Canada. I am sure all members will know that we are really a host province when it comes to the auto industry. We do not have an indigenous auto that is truly Ontarian or Canadian. All we have are the Big Three and the foreign automakers. They are here and we are at their mercy, because if they decide to pull out, which they do from time to time, we have a problem.

But where we do have an industry that is very viable and one that does extremely well is in auto parts manufacturing. They are the ones who produce here; they service these assembly plants and they are very concerned.

1740

True again, we get to the numbers game. The association originally came out and said yes, it was in favour of the auto pact. But the two largest members, Magna International and Woodbridge Foam, were opposed. These people really have credibility, and the reason they have that credibility is they are protected. They have plants in the United States, they have plants in Canada and they say, “It’s not going to make any difference to us because whatever happens we have that flexibility to go one way or the other.” Having said that, they said: “We are opposed to it. If this deal goes through, we will shift our major emphasis to the United States because it makes no sense for us to be here.”

So we have a very serious impact on the auto industry. Already I have heard from representatives in Tokyo that the Japanese auto makers are looking very seriously at this. I am hoping that we can resolve the problems, but it certainly has set up a concern. Without question, and we have heard it mentioned -- certainly by several speakers on the third party side in particular -- that the auto industry, the Big Three, is delighted, and why not? At one time, they were the auto industry in the world; the automobile was synonymous with the US economy. Now they are under severe pressure, where in North America, I think, 51 per cent of the market is foreign.

It is a good deal, it is a great deal, for the Big Three. If I were an American, I would cheer that this has been done. But in Ontario, which is the heart of the auto industry in Canada, we are very lucky and our economy has benefited from the fact that we have Honda and we have Toyota and we have the Suzuki-General Motors plant being built in Ingersoll. Notwithstanding that, we welcome and we enjoy the benefits of having GM in Oshawa, Ford in Oakville, Chrysler in Windsor and Chrysler-American Motors in Brampton. All of these things are great for our economy, but it is also important and critical that we maintain these third-country manufacturers, and this deal is going to severely impact on that relationship. We think that in fact with the removal of the tariff which we use as a stick to compel compliance with the safeguards we have some serious problems on the horizon.

The last thing I want to talk about is that the free trade agreement also contains provisions constraining the manner in which governments regulate domestic service industries in the future. Canadian governments will be able to regulate in a fashion that differentiates between domestic and US providers of a service so long as any differentiation is no greater than necessary for consumer protection, prudential, fiduciary or health and safety reasons and is equivalent in effect.

What that does again is set up a whole range of concerns. Does that mean that we will be subject to all sorts of potential trade retaliation because of programs that we have in effect, that the people of Ontario and the people of Canada have begun and have accepted as part of our way of life?

Again, without knocking the United States -- and I can tell members that we treasure our relationship with the United States -- all you have to do is go down into the United States and see some of the programs that the government is providing there, compared to what is provided here; and we are in fact the envy of many because of that. If that is going to be on the table -- and I am not saying that we are going to have reduce ours to match theirs -- it will mean that it could be a factor that is going to impinge negatively on the people of Ontario and the people of Canada and it is something that we certainly have to concern ourselves with.

Then of course we get into this other area that is still very tentative, because we have not come to a complete determination, but that deals with provincial powers and whether or not powers can be affected with or without provincial consent.

The federal government has ignored the principles of Canadian federalism by attempting to bargain away provincial powers. This unilateral federal initiative violates a basic and established constitutional norm: one level of government does not have the power to reduce or limit the jurisdiction of the other.

Analysis by the government of Ontario indicates that the proposed trade agreement deals very substantially with matters falling under provincial jurisdiction. If signed and implemented, it will represent a dramatic impairment of provincial powers. This should be a matter of profound concern for all Canadians who look to the provinces for social and economic initiatives.

This, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, has been a historic debate. It is one that certainly will not end with today’s debate. It will continue for some time, and as more and more people get a chance to really understand the ramifications of what this deal is, I think we are going to see some very dramatic changes of opinion.

In closing, if there is one thing that has become obvious to me in my discussions, in our committees, in travels around the province, it is that this debate is being argued at two levels, and even in this House that has happened. On one level, people are arguing the economic concept of free trade; they are saying: “Don’t confuse me with the facts. Free trade has got to be a good thing. Surely you cannot object to free trade.”

That is not the issue. As I said earlier in my remarks, we have no problem with the economic concept of free trade. What we are talking about is this deal. This is a deal where we have given up far too much for what we are going to get. We have given up things and we do not even know what the ramifications are. As time progresses, I think the position of this government will be accepted by more and more people, and members will find that we have acted responsibly and with a sense of looking after the economic destiny of this province and this country.

I urge all members of the House to support the resolution, and I want to thank them for participating in the debate.

Mr. Speaker: On Tuesday, December 15, l 987, Mr. Kwinter moved government notice of motion 8. At the same sitting of the Legislature, Mr. B. Rae moved an amendment to that motion, the question to be decided by the House.

1750

The House divided on Mr. B. Rae’s amendment, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Allen, Breaugh, Charlton, Cooke, D. S., Farnan, Grier, Hampton, Johnston, R. F., Laughren, Mackenzie, Morin-Strom, Philip, E., Rae, B., Reville, Wildman.

Nays

Adams, Ballinger, Beer, Bradley, Brandt, Brown, Callahan, Campbell, Caplan, Carrothers, Cleary, Collins, Conway, Cooke, D. R., Cordiano, Cousens, Curling, Daigeler, Dietsch, Eakins, Elston, Epp, Eves, Faubert, Fawcett, Ferraro, Fleet, Fontaine, Furlong, Grandmaître, Haggerty, Harris, Hart, Henderson, Hošek, Jackson, Johnson, J. M., Kanter, Kerrio, Keyes, Kozyra, Kwinter, LeBourdais, Lipsett, Lupusella;

MacDonald, Mahoney, Matrundola, McClelland, McGuigan, McGuinty, McLean, McLeod, Miclash, Miller, Morin, Munro, Neumann, Nixon, J. B., Nixon, R. F., Offer, O’Neil, H., O’Neill, Y., Patten, Pelissero, Peterson, Phillips, G., Pollock, Polsinelli, Pope, Ramsay, Ray, M. C., Reycraft, Riddell, Roberts, Scott, Smith, D. W., Smith, E. J., Sola, South, Sterling, Stoner, Sullivan, Sweeney, Tatham, Velshi, Villeneuve, Ward, Wilson, Wrye.

Ayes 15, nays 90.

1756

The House divided on Hon. Mr. Kwinter’s motion, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Adams, Ballinger, Beer, Bradley, Brown, Callahan, Campbell, Caplan, Carrothers, Cleary, Collins, Conway, Cooke, D. R., Cordiano, Curling, Daigeler, Dietsch, Eakins, Elston, Epp, Faubert, Fawcett, Ferraro, Fleet, Fontaine, Furlong, Grandmaître, Haggerty, Hart, Henderson, Hošek, Kanter, Kerrio, Keyes, Kozyra, Kwinter, LeBourdais, Lipsett, Lupusella;

MacDonald, Mahoney, Matrundola, McClelland, McGuigan, McGuinty, McLeod, Miclash, Miller, Morin, Munro, Neumann, Nixon, J. B., Nixon, R. F., Offer, O’Neil, H., O’Neill, Y., Patten, Pelissero, Peterson, Phillips, G., Polsinelli, Ramsay, Ray, M. C., Reycraft, Riddell, Roberts, Scott, Smith, D. W., Smith, E. J., Sola, South, Stoner, Sullivan, Sweeney, Tatham, Velshi, Ward, Wilson, Wrye.

Nays

Allen, Brandt, Breaugh, Charlton, Cooke, D. S., Cousens, Eves, Farnan, Grier, Hampton, Harris, Jackson, Johnson, J. M., Johnston, R. F., Laughren, Mackenzie, McLean, Morin-Strom, Philip, E., Pollock, Pope, Rae, B., Reville, Sterling, Villeneuve, Wildman.

Ayes 79; nays 26.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

6 janvier 1988