role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

December 21, 1987

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L026 - Mon 21 Dec 1987 / Lun 21 déc 1987

MEMBERS’ STATEMEN T S

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

BEN JOHNSON

LEARNING DISABLED

FAMILY VALUES

PENETANGUISHENE MENTAL HEALTH CENTRE

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

INTERNATIONAL SALE OF GOODS

FOREST PRODUCTS INDUSTRIES

RESPONSES

FOREST PRODUCTS INDUSTRIES

INTERNATIONAL SALE OF GOODS

ESTHER SHINER

ORAL QUESTIONS

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR POWER

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

FUTURES PROGRAM

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

HAZARDOUS SPILL

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

BEEF FARMERS

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

SUPPORT PAYMENTS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

ROUGE VALLEY

PETITIONS

THERAPY FOR ABUSED CHILDREN

LIQUOR STORE

SHANNON LAKE ROAD

MOOSE TAG LOTTERY; REMOTE TOURIST AREA

HELP CENTRES

RETAIL STORE HOURS

HELP CENTRES

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

INTERNATIONAL SALE OF GOODS ACT /

LOI SUR LA VENTE INTERNATIONALE DE MARCHANDISES

WINDSOR UTILITIES COMMISSION ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES (CONTINUED)

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

Prayers.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BEN JOHNSON

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

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

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

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

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

LEARNING DISABLED

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

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

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

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

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

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

FAMILY VALUES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Order.

PENETANGUISHENE MENTAL HEALTH CENTRE

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

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

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

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

INTERNATIONAL SALE OF GOODS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

part in harmonizing the law that governs contracts for international trade.

FOREST PRODUCTS INDUSTRIES

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

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

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

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

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

RESPONSES

FOREST PRODUCTS INDUSTRIES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

INTERNATIONAL SALE OF GOODS

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

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

ESTHER SHINER

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ORAL QUESTIONS

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Pope: No.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If, for example, a province wants to do something in the future, it may be ruled contrary to the free trade accord and there could be some discussion on that. There is also, as the Attorney General has pointed out to the members,

section 103, and the implementation of the “all necessary measures” provision could indeed force some clarification in the future as it pertains to a specific piece of implementation legislation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NUCLEAR POWER

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Brandt: Which is referred to a committee.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Order.

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

Mr. Speaker: Response.

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order; supplementary.

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

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Brandt: I have not asked the question.

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

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

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

Hon. Mr. Peterson: There is some misunderstanding and I want to clear it up. There is no resolution going to the committee. The text is going to the committee. There is a fundamental misunderstanding. I think the member will want to speak to his House leader in that regard and that will clear up the question. All that is going is the text. I think, if I am right, that the chairman of the committee is nodding his head; that is what is there. The resolution we are discussing in this House is not going to that committee.

The resolution in this House is going to the federal government and to the government of the United States, so that they clearly understand the intention and will of the majority of the legislators in this House. That is what it is all about.

FUTURES PROGRAM

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

Mr. Rae: Ah, goody-goody.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I presume the minister is aware of the Toronto Star

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As I told the honourable member, the Attorney General is undertaking a constitutional audit now, looking at each

section and the potential legal disputes in the future. That will be clearly shared with the members. One of the problems he had is that he could not do a complete legal assessment on the basis of the preliminary text. He had to have the final agreement, because presumably there were problems that could be created and/or solved by the final text. Now it is there.

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

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

HAZARDOUS SPILL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BEEF FARMERS

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

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

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

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

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

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SUPPORT PAYMENTS

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

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

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

an act that says payments will take precedence over Revenue Canada’s claims.

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

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

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

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

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

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

Interjections.

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

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

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

Hon. R. F. Nixon: No.

ROUGE VALLEY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PETITIONS

THERAPY FOR ABUSED CHILDREN

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

LIQUOR STORE

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

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

SHANNON LAKE ROAD

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

MOOSE TAG LOTTERY; REMOTE TOURIST AREA

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

HELP CENTRES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So presented.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RETAIL STORE HOURS

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

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

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

HELP CENTRES

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

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

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

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

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

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

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

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

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

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

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

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

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

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

INTERNATIONAL SALE OF GOODS ACT /

LOI SUR LA VENTE INTERNATIONALE DE MARCHANDISES

Hon. Mr. Scott moved first reading of Bill 90,

An Act respecting the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods.

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

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

WINDSOR UTILITIES COMMISSION ACT

Mr. M. C. Ray moved first reading of Bill Pr62,

An Act respecting the Windsor Utilities Commission.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES (CONTINUED)

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

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

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

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Where is your leader?

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Pope: The minister did.

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

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

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

interpretation of his whole process of decision-making and the people he consulted with, including the Premier of this province.

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

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

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

[Applause]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I do not think that is appropriate. I do not think that is responsible government for one iota on this most important, unique opportunity.

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

Ontario was in the room.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He indicates, “The proposed agreement imposes new constraints on what Canadian governments can do for people in the future.” Surely that is a position that cannot be defended in light of the exemptions for the cultural industries and in the light of the exemptions under the energy provisions of the free trade agreement which it allows. It allows the Canadian government to intervene when there is a shortage of domestic supply, when there is a problem with respect to price, or when there is a need for conservation. Surely it does not stand examination of the text of the free trade agreement.

That opinion does not stand in the face of any kind of examination of the free trade agreement. We have to presume that either the Attorney General was generalizing or he had not examined the text when he made that statement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is nothing different in the text of this agreement with respect to the federal government’s powers to pass enabling legislation for a treaty and to implement a treaty than is found in

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

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

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

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

Hon. Mr. Elston: Get your facts straight.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Fleet: That’s utter nonsense.

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

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

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

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

I want to say it is clear, with seven out of the 10 provincial governments on side, the federal government has engaged in precisely the process the Supreme Court of Canada indicated was appropriate when it made its ruling on the proposed Constitution Act in 1981. This Premier,