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

June 17, 1993

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

TORONTO MAPLE LEAFS

SOCIAL CONTRACT

HEALTH CARDS

AVALON RETIREMENT LODGE

TORONTO MAPLE LEAFS

SOCIAL CONTRACT

POLITICAL MEETING

FOLKLORE FESTIVAL

COMPENSATION FOR WRONGFUL CONVICTION

WITHDRAWAL OF BILL

UNEMPLOYMENT

SOCIAL CONTRACT

TAX INCREASES

PUBLIC OPINION POLLS

ONTARIO FILM REVIEW BOARD

ARTS AND CULTURAL FUNDING

ONTARIO FILM REVIEW BOARD

HIGHWAY TOLLS

MUNICIPAL PLANNING

PUBLIC SERVICES

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY RETIREMENT ALLOWANCES AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES ALLOCATIONS DE RETRAITE DES DÉPUTÉS À L'ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE

BUDGET REFERENDUM ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LES RÉFÉRENDUMS PORTANT SUR LES BUDGETS

SOCIAL CONTRACT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LE CONTRAT SOCIAL

The House met at 1001.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES

Mr Murdoch moved private member's notice of motion number 14:

That, in the opinion of this House, since the conservation land tax rebate has been cancelled making it impossible for some conservation authorities to pay their taxes; and

Since the government is asking conservation authorities to accept funding cuts which are far more severe than those foisted on other sectors of society; and

Since the Association of Conservation Authorities of Ontario have offered A Blueprint for Success which would save Ontario taxpayers an estimated $100 million; and

Since the future of our wetlands, floodplains and conservation areas are threatened by this government's fiscal mismanagement;

Therefore, the conservation land tax rebate should be immediately reinstated to conservation authorities and the government should seriously consider and implement the concepts outlined in the Blueprint for Success.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I am presenting this resolution to the House today because I'm very concerned about the difficult situation we find our conservation authorities in. This government has cut their operating funds by more than those in other sectors, and they are being asked to sacrifice in addition to eliminating the conservation land tax rebate for public land.

The people of Ontario are worried now about their environmentally sensitive lands. They are afraid that they may have to be sold if there is no money to pay the taxes.

To show Bob Rae and his Minister of Natural Resources that they are serious, a lot of people from my area have come down here today to show their support for this resolution. They want to support their conservation authorities, for the wetlands and the floodplains, the parks and the forests, which they believe the government is abandoning.

We have a lot of people sitting in the gallery, both here and up there, from my area. We have people from the conservation authorities, from the field naturalists, a lot of representatives from municipalities, chambers of commerce, a lot of sportsmen's clubs, heritage and other groups from my area that are very concerned that if we continue in this way, downloading on to our conservation authorities and on to our municipalities, there will be no land left for people to enjoy and the sensitive areas will be sold to private developers, and that would be unfair.

I share a number of their concerns also. I believe that what we can do is protect this land for the environment, and there is a way of doing it. My own area has been very lucky to have a lot of this land bought up and looked after by the conservation authorities, but the problem is that this government now has reneged on a promise that was made for many years by other governments, that they would pay the conservation land tax.

What this is going to do is force some of the municipalities to sell some of this land. As you know, in the private sector, if you fall behind in paying your tax bill, after three years the municipalities can and may sell the land to pay the taxes.

We have the same situation happening here. For many years the conservation authorities all over Ontario have gone out and with the help of the government and with the help of many individuals bought a lot of this land to protect, as I said, land such as wetlands and lands of significant interest, lands that all the people in Ontario would like to enjoy. Therefore, the wisdom of the past governments was that all the people in Ontario should pay the taxes on it. Well, something's happened. This government decided that, no, the local people are going to have to pick up the tax bill, and it's straight downloading.

I see in the audience Mr Kirk, who is sitting up there, who in our area is called Mr Conservationist. This man has spent most of his whole life collecting land, looking after land that is sensitive and should be enjoyed by everyone and should be protected for everyone. As I said, he's spent most of his life doing this and working towards that.

He's gone to many different clubs all over and asked them to donate land, donate money and put it into the land of the conservation authority, because as you know, the conservation authority is a group that is managed through the Ministry of Natural Resources of the province and it paid the land tax. But all of a sudden, without any consultation, this government decides, "Hey, we're not going to pay that tax any more."

What does the conservation authority do? They only have two people they can collect money from, and one is the province and the other is the municipality. They owe the taxes to the municipality, so they can't go to the municipality for any more money. We have a problem and that is why this resolution is here today.

I want to stress that Mr Kirk also worked to get a lot of the land along the Niagara Escarpment put into the conservation authorities. In my area, the Niagara Escarpment winds through pretty well over half of Grey county and we're proud to have the escarpment in Grey county. There may be some other things we're not proud of with the escarpment but we won't discuss those today. But that land is very sensitive and there are a lot of land-use problems there, so the best way to solve some of those problems was to buy that land. As I said, Mr Kirk knew that also and he worked hard to get a lot of this land.

Now what's going to happen when the conservation authorities do not pay their taxes? We're going to be in trouble and I'm afraid we may lose some of this land and the people of Ontario will lose the land also, and it may be lost for ever if development takes over, if the municipalities are forced to sell it. I want to tell you, Mr Speaker, that we're in a serious problem here.

In my area, I have four conservation authorities and I'm proud of them all. We have the Grey Sauble Conservation Authority, the Saugeen conservation authority, the Nottawasaga conservation authority and a little part of the Grand, and I know there are some people here today from the Grand also, as well as the other three conservation authorities.

The big thing that's a let-down is that the bureaucrats at Queen's Park promised us they would pay this. Now, we understand that the government has problems with money right now and we in this party want to help it out and solve that problem. We know we don't have a lot of money in Ontario right now, but this is not the way to do it, to download it on to the municipalities.

What happened is that each of the ministries was told it had to cut back, and that's fine, we agree with that. But the bureaucrats in the MNR, who have always been jealous of the conservation authorities because they do a far better job of delivering programs, said, "Hey, we'll nail the conservation authorities; we'll take the money from them," and that's what they did.

Mr Murdoch: But the problem is, it goes right back down to the poor taxpayer.

These bureaucrats said, "We're going to nail them," and that's what they did and they duped the government. I think when the government wakes up and finds out what the bureaucrats did to them, it's going to agree with me on this motion. I hope that they will come out at 12 o'clock noon today when the vote will be on, and vote for this.

Also, I wanted to talk a little bit about A Blueprint for Success. That's also in this motion. The conservation authorities also want to help the government solve their problems and help them with their money, so what the conservation authorities did is that they got together and came up with A Blueprint for Success, which will save almost $100 million.

What I want the government to do is to listen to them. There's a lot of overlapping and duplication of programs. If somebody wants to develop, they have to go to almost 12 agencies, and a lot of those agencies say the same thing, do the same thing. Well, we can save a lot of money by looking at this Blueprint for Success and help the government out in its problems.

This is why this resolution's been put on the floor today. I'm looking forward for the government to support me on this and then it can go back to the Ministry of Natural Resources and tell the bureaucrats that they can't download on to the municipalities through the conservation authorities, because it's not going to work. We're going to lose some sensitive land which we don't want to do. What's going to happen also is that municipalities and individuals are not going to help support conservation authorities buying more land because they need their tax base, and we'll lose sensitive areas that should be bought right now.

There are lots of areas in our province right now that need to be protected and this is the only way it can be done, or one of the best ways it can be done, because everybody in Ontario shares the pain when the taxes are paid through the province to the conservation authorities.

Again, I just want to point out the importance of this resolution and the importance of the government of the day supporting this. I'm sure my colleagues from the Liberal Party are here to support us and I know I have support in our own party to help find a solution to this problem.

One way is to give back their land tax money immediately. It must be done right now, because the taxes are due. The municipalities need the money. They've already budgeted their budgets. If they're not paid now, that means that they're going to have to go back to the local taxpayer and raise taxes to make up the shortfall.

In my area alone, there could be over $300,000 lost, which is a large amount of money if you take it over the area of Grey and Bruce and we just can't afford that there, and the rest of the people of Ontario and places like that can't afford to lose this money. If we want to keep Ontario healthy and a good place to live, and places that need protecting, this is the only way it can be done. I hope that everyone here will support me in this bill.

Interruption.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): To start off with, I just want to make the comment that --

The Deputy Speaker: Could you wait just for a minute, please. I would like to remind the people in the gallery that it's not permitted to applaud. Only the members on the floor can make noise, but not the people in the gallery. I would ask for your kind cooperation. The member for Cochrane North.

Mr Wood: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I'm pleased to get up and make a few brief comments on the bill brought forward by the member for the Conservative Party. This is a budget item that he's asking to be reversed, the conservation rebate tax be reversed in the budget. We had the expenditure control, we had the budget and we had the social contract talks of nine weeks that were part of trying to control the amount of money the government is able to spend.

On the conservation authorities, I attended a meeting and spoke to the authorities on April 19 at Airport Road in Mississauga. The message at that time was made very clear, that we have to find a better and more efficient way of dealing with all the ministries and agencies out there, find better and more innovative ways of dealing with things.

Conservation authorities were created primarily to meet very specific challenges -- flooding and erosion control -- and they've been doing that for almost 50 years. We realize that the job is not done, but the need for major capital programs is greatly diminished.

An enormous amount of publicity has been carried out. An

article from the London Free Press of June 1 mentions a lot of duplication between different ministries. It suggests that there is probably $100 million of duplication, money being spent that is just duplicating what the municipalities, the province, conservation authorities, and other ministries are involved in supplying there.

I would expect that when the member for Grey brought forth this resolution, he knew full well that any suggestion or idea that a budget item we dealt with be reversed -- I'm opposing the resolution he has brought forward. I believe there are other ways and means of dealing with this. There have been a lot of different meetings, including the meeting at which I was their guest speaker. We have to find ways and means of dealing with that realistically and not just reversing that.

There are going to be meetings with a number of different ministries, including with the Minister of Natural Resources, Howard Hampton. I understand that meetings are going to be held later on next week to talk about the whole situation, the problem we've had. We had to find ways and means to reduce the expected deficit from $17-plus billion down to $9.2 billion. The conservative authorities were not being singled out any more than any other group to find the reductions.

Mr Murdoch: It's not $9.2 billion. You're still over $10 billion.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Grey, you had your turn.

Mr Wood: In the brief time I have, I believe we should all work together to find a way of dealing with this. The conservation authorities, in conjunction with MNR, with the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, with various ministries, have come up with some programs where they're saying there's a lot duplication, a lot of waste. I think we should encourage them to continue on this route and encourage them all to sit down together to find ways and means of making sure that the pain and hurting that every agency is feeling right across the province is the least painful possible.

I'd just repeat that conservation authorities were created primarily to find ways of controlling flooding and erosion. This process is going to continue, but we have to find ways of doing it within the financial restraints we've been faced with, the worst restraints we've ever been faced with going back 50 years, since the recession.

With that, I'd just like to say thank you very much, and I'll listen to the comments from the other members.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I'm rising to support the resolution which is before the House today. I think it makes a lot of sense.

The program initially was to encourage people to turn over properties to conservation authorities. It allowed conservation authorities to acquire, for the general public good, lands which were environmentally sensitive. It seems to me that when that program was introduced, it received a good deal of applause from a wide cross-section of the public, and for this reason I believe it should be restored.

It's interesting. If I had asked people, when I had the opportunity to be the Environment minister of this province, "Which party do you think is probably going to deliver most in terms of environmental conservation?" many objective people, because the NDP has always portrayed itself in this way, would perhaps have suggested that the New Democratic Party would have been the party to do it.

How ironic it is that today the budgets of the Ministry of Environment and Energy and the budgets of the Ministry of Natural Resources are severely cut at a time when the government has an opportunity to look at all of its ministries and make choices. The easy choice, of course, is always to say everybody's going to be cut equally in every ministry and it kind of keeps cabinet ministers happy.

To govern, however, is to choose and to make decisions, and it seems to me that if the government wished to indicate a priority for the environment and for conservation, the measures announced in the last budget would not have been introduced. Now we have a situation where the operating grants to conservation authorities are being cut back.

The conservation authorities, as well as everybody at the municipal level -- and I look at the general municipal level when we talk about conservation authorities -- fully recognize that we're in difficult economic times. They don't expect that the provincial government is going to be opening up the coffers and giving millions upon millions of new dollars for the purpose of the operations of conservation authorities.

But one of the problems that they confront is that the government has not given sufficient notice to anybody at the municipal level of the kind of drastic cuts that we're seeing in operating budgets of conservation authorities and other local authorities across the province, so their ability to adjust, their ability to make the changes that are necessary, is severely limited by the fact that there was very little notice of what was going on. In any event, it seems to me that if we want to preserve for future generations the lands and the circumstances that exist on those lands, it's going to require an appropriate investment by the provincial government in that regard.

I have raised with the Premier on a number of occasions in this House a number of expenditures that I think are outlandish. I've dwelt on the issue of, for instance, government advertising and what I consider to be self-serving government advertising. If the government were to cut back on that, cut back on the kind of electronic and print advertising that is simply a pat on the back publicly for the government, and would devote those funds to conservation authorities, I think we would find that the circumstances for conservation authorities would be much better.

Now, by eliminating the conservation land tax rebate program, the government has, as I say, eliminated a program that had a good cross-section of support. Sometimes, programs that governments implement satisfy one specific group, one specific organization, one specific segment of society. I would suggest to members of this House that that particular tax rebate program had widespread support across Ontario. If you talked to people from various walks of life, if you talked to people who are supporters of various political parties, I think you would find a pretty good consensus that that was an excellent program.

To see an NDP government eliminate that program, an NDP government which had its Agenda for People, which it brought out during the election campaign and shared with people during the election campaign, to have that same NDP government now withdraw that particular conservation land tax rebate program is indeed ironic and certainly not acceptable.

I am alarmed by the fact that we could be losing environmentally sensitive lands, that in desperation, just as individuals in desperation are forced to sell off properties and lands from time to time, the circumstances facing conservation authorities are such that they are going to be compelled to do the same. It is estimated that by eliminating the conservation land tax rebate program, which of course we know is a subsidy provided by the provincial government to the conservation authorities -- it assisted them in paying property taxes on lands they administered -- the government can save $3.6 million.

But according to the Association of Conservation Authorities of Ontario, nine to 10 conservation authorities have given preliminary indications that they will have to consider land sales in 1993, and that number could virtually double in 1994.

That seems unacceptable to me. I hear people talking about the Oak Ridges moraine, I hear people talking about the Niagara escarpment and other beautiful lands across Ontario, and I think most people would concede that it is a worthwhile objective to save those lands for future generations and for the enjoyment of present generations, to maintain the fauna and the wildlife that exist in those particular areas.

In addition to this, the conservation authorities are of course going to be facing layoffs. That means more unemployment in various areas of the province and it also means a reduced service provided to people. It's interesting to note that when people want to practise restraint, and everyone agrees with restraint, there are consequences.

Our quarrel in the opposition is this specific program. We recognize that the government is looking for every possible way to save, and the conservation authorities have said they recognize this as well. They have taken a long-term and comprehensive view of the kinds of programs that are administered by various ministries, such as the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and the Ministry of Environment and Energy. Those three ministries are involved in one way or another, along with conservation authorities and sometimes local municipalities, in administering various programs.

Some good suggestions have come forward from the conservation authorities on how these efforts can be coordinated and money can be saved.

So I will be, I'm sure with a lot of my colleagues, supporting this particular resolution. I hope that members on the governing side will listen carefully to the arguments put forward by people across this province and in this House and indeed that they will support this resolution.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I'm pleased to rise this morning in support of the resolution brought forward by my colleague the member for Grey. I'm in a rather unique position. I have spent 16 years on the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority and I served two years as chairman, so I know the background about conservation authorities and the key role they have played in the delivery of the natural resources and the planning, management and the protection of the streams and waters in this province.

Since their formation in 1946, conservation authorities have witnessed first hand many of the serious problems that exist as a result of the responsibilities for natural resources and environmental management. Today they are struggling through the maze of resource management agencies in order to find a logical way to ensure that resources of Ontario's watersheds can effectively be managed and enhanced.

They have done it well over the years, but their restraint in recent years is leaving the management agencies struggling to fulfil their mandates. They have obligations, commitments that have been made. They have capital projects under way, which are also funded by the local municipality in partnership.

I recognize the importance of this resolution and I recognize the input the member for Grey has had as chairman of his conservation authority. The key aspect of his resolution really has to do with the tax rebate. It's impossible for some conservation authorities now to pay their taxes. Some of them say, "We either sell the land or don't pay." They wrestle with how to pay the bills. The Otonabee Region Conservation Authority has some $62,000 it's not going to get from the ministry to pay taxes. The Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority has some $70,000 it's not going to get to pay its taxes.

We have seen the Blueprint for Success prepared by the Association of Conservation Authorities of Ontario, which it says will save the government $100 million. Is that not a step in the right direction?

The future plan for wetlands is the other important aspect of his bill.

On the 20th anniversary of the conservation authorities program being administered by the Ministry of Natural Resources, it has declined: The 1992 financial support in inflation-adjusted dollars was only 45% of what it was 20 years ago, the first year the partnership was put in place, and it's gone down ever since.

The former NDP Minister of Natural Resources announced in May 1991 that Ontario's 38 conservation authorities were to receive a total of $48.7 million in funding for 1991. In November 1991 the same minister turned around and announced that his government had stopped payment on more than $1 million in promised funds for conservation authorities. This is totally unacceptable when these authorities have made commitments with their local municipalities to go ahead and do the work that they thought was to be put in place. That's an example of what the member for Grey is talking about with regard to this resolution.

On May 5, 1993, the conservation authorities of Ontario released the Blueprint for Success: Restructuring Resource Management, and in the conclusion of this document, conservation authorities indicate that society can no longer afford to maintain the current institutional arrangements that promote inefficient resource management. They go on and suggest:

"Resource management must be planned and implemented on a watershed basis. The province should focus its attention on the planning aspects of resource management, including legislation, policy, research and provincial-scale planning."

The province should have managed its resources better. We're not opposed to the restraint, but we say, when you come along and take the amount of money three years in a row off of conservation authorities, it really makes them stop and think, "Are we a partner or are we not?" And when we see the government spend $1.3 million just to poll the public with regard to their opinions, we say that money is not being spent wisely.

So when we look at all the aspects of it and we look at what the nature conservancy has done with regard to partnership in purchasing land, there are thousands of acres that have been purchased in Minesing Swamp. The taxes are being paid by the conservation authorities. It originally started out that the Nature Conservancy of Canada was a partner in that.

The recreational properties that have been established around the province by conservation authorities: Who is going to continue to maintain them with partnership of the local municipality? The government says that it's meeting with people. Well, we hear that all the time, they're meeting, but are they listening? Are they listening to the concerns?

The number of people who are here this morning supporting the member for Grey with this resolution are an indication of the concern that's out there across the province with regard to conservation authorities, so I urge everyone in this Legislature to vote yes for this legislation, because if you do that, you're voting yes for the environment, yes for the future of our children and yes for the future of parks and recreational properties in this province.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I'm going to try to take a little bit of a different tack in regard to what is happening here and what this resolution is all about and what really strikes at the core to this whole debate.

I think all of us recognize, the people who are here from the conservation authorities, the public that is watching this debate today and members in this House all understand where we find ourselves today, not only in Ontario but most other jurisdictions across North America.

The problem is simple. There's a pot of money about this big and there are needs that are about that big, and the difficulty with us, like anybody in the private sector or anybody with their personal finances, is that you need to be able to deal with the question of, how do you manage your cost in regard to what's happening on the expenditure side? That's the problem we have.

This problem isn't a new one. No, this problem's been around for a while, and the problem has been probably magnified, I would say probably about 10 times, in light of what the recession we've been going through for the last two or three years has been. We've seen governments across Canada have the same problem where costs have been increasing on a very, very steady increase as a slope because of the demands that are put on governments because of the recession.

There are more people unemployed. There are more people needing help as far as unemployment insurance, social assistance, other kinds of pensions. When people are out of work, there's difficulty when it comes to home problems where people have to access their community health services etc, so our costs go up.

But at the same time, the difficulty is that revenue went down because there are not as many people working. The problem that we have in this province is the problem that we have across this country: There are not enough jobs out there, and with not enough jobs, there's not enough money coming into the tax coffers in order to be able to pay for those programs, such as what we are talking about in the conservation authorities.

So governments of the day are stuck with some very difficult decisions, and the decision is, how do you manage this problem? The government has some choices. The government can say, "That's okay; we're not going to touch anything and we're going to allow things to go the way that they are and we'll allow the debt to accumulate and accumulate and accumulate." Well, we've seen the federal government do that over the years, and we see now a $35-billion-per-year debt that is sitting at the federal level that nobody's dealt with. What I fear in the long run is that after the next federal election, no matter who's there as a government, they're going to have to deal with that very serious problem.

How are they going to deal with it? They will have to cut, and once they have to cut, they're going to come on to us, the provinces, and cut the transfer payments, and we'll be in a situation where increasingly governments will have a difficult time finding money to pay for problems.

Interjections.

Mr Bisson: So what we are doing here in Ontario is to say we need to be able to deal with the problem. I see I've got the hackles up in the Conservative caucus, anyway.

The problem is that we have to manage our expenditures. So government made some decisions. Are the decisions easy? Of course not. Do governments enjoy making these decisions? Of course not. Are conservation authorities important to our society? Of course they are.

But the fact still remains there's not enough money in the pot to pay for them, and for the member across the way to suggest that we shouldn't deal with the question of expenditure reduction and we should just make sure that everybody gets the same amount of money that they got in the past, or somehow magically take the money from another ministry to give it to the conservation authorities in order to allow them to operate in their entity as they are now, is to say, "Transfer the problem from MNR and put it on to the conservation authorities." I don't think that the people of Ontario want us to do that.

I think what the people of Ontario want us to do is to be fair in the approach.

So let's examine what happened through the expenditure reduction plan. The government looked at all of the programs that the government offers, from the Ministry of Natural Resources to the Ministry of Health, all of them, and the conservation authorities fall under the MNR. Each one of those ministries was affected as far as costs, and each of those agencies that are transferred dollars from those ministries is affected when it comes to cost, in one way or another.

Either people will be affected through the social contract in regard to the negotiations that are going on now or their actual budgets have been reduced. Everybody has to be able to share in being able to manage the costs. That's simply what's happening.

The political problem we have is that, first of all, people don't accept change very well and, secondly, people don't want to accept any cuts in their own backyard. I don't as an individual who works as a salaried employee of the government, and I don't expect the conservation authorities accept that either.

So why was the money cut in regard to the conservation authority on the conservation land tax? It is because there isn't the base there in order to pay for the bill. The conservation authorities, like all other agencies within the government, have to do their

part in being able to manage down the cost.

The political problem that we have, and I'll get back to where I was going initially, is that it is very difficult to manage this politically. Why? Because you have, first of all, the media out there that will report what is going on, and there's a little bit of fearmongering going on at the same time where it gets very, very difficult for a government to be able to have any kind of rational debate about this because people are hurt, people are upset, people are all kinds of things because of some of the things that happen within the opposition, sometimes within our own government caucus and what happens within the media.

I say, if we take a look at the problem, that we look at what happened in the private sector maybe as an analogy. The private sector over the past number of years has had to cut very drastically in order for some of those companies to stay alive. I look at my riding: Dome Mines, a big mining company; 300 people got laid off two years ago, three years ago, because of what was happening inside the industry. Those workers had no opportunity to deal with that, other than just accepting the layoff.

Falconbridge in my riding has just announced 250 people are going to be laid off at that mine, and the list goes on and on. We just noticed IBM in the papers yesterday saying they're going to lay off another 1,000 people.

I say that because I think it's important that people understand what's happening out there. You have a private sector that's hurting. The opposition will say, "Well, it's all Bob Rae's fault." Well, give me a break. I think people are smart enough to figure that that's not the problem. But what's happening is that because you've got fewer people working, you've got fewer people paying taxes and the government has less and less revenue to be able to deal with the question of how we fund conservation authorities and how we fund various kinds of programs.

The difficulty we have in this province is that we need to find a way that we can start having some kind of mechanism or some kind of way of getting people to the problem. If you can get people to the problem, to understand what the heck is going on, and you get people to understand what some of the options are, maybe then we can try to manage this in a little bit better way. But it's extremely difficult to do that because people don't want to accept sometimes that they're the ones who are going to have to take the cut. That's as simple as what it comes down to.

I would just say in finishing --

Interjections.

Mr Bisson: I look at the Conservative members across the way jumping up and down in this debate. I look at you and I look at eight years of Tory government in Ottawa and I say, "Shame on you." So don't start your sanctimoniousness with me.

The question we have to ask ourselves is simply this: Do conservation authorities serve a useful purpose in our society? Of course they do. Do conservation authorities do a good job within our communities? Of course they do. Would we want to be able to give all the money necessary to conservation authorities to do the proper job? Of course we would all want to.

The reality is there is not enough money in the pot to be able to make that happen. Conservation authorities, like everybody else within MNR, within the Ministry of Health, within the Ministry of Education, within all sectors of government, are going to have to deal with the question of how we learn how to do more with less. Do we like that? Of course not. But such is the reality that we find ourselves in today in 1993 in the economy that we are sitting in. We're not the only ones having to deal with it. It's happening all across the country. It's happening in the United States. It's happening everywhere.

We look across the border to the United States, where they're trying to cut $400 billion in spending.

So I think we need to find a way in order to get into these kinds of debates and to say, "What's the problem, what do we do, and how are we able to share information so that we can manage this as best we can?" At the end of the day, it is going to mean that there will be reductions. I think we all understand that. But for the member from the opposition to say, "Well, the solution of this year is to say conservation authorities are not going to get the cut and we're going to somehow get the money from MNR to do it," is transferring the problem from one particular ministry on to another. I don't think that's a solution that will, quite frankly, work.

I think conservation authorities are responsible bodies that are going to deal with it the best way they can. It's not going to be easy; I admit that. But like every other ministry, they're going to have to try to deal with this problem in as proactive a way as possible.

I say, just in closing, is this something that people like? Of course not. I think all of us would rather be in a different position. I think all of us would like to have an endless pot of money to be able to pay for these programs over the long run. But such is not the case. We need to manage this the best way that we can, and we have to find a way in this province of getting our partners together and saying: "Here's the problem. Where do we go from here? How can we find the best possible solution, given where we're at?"

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): It's my pleasure to take

part in this debate on a very important resolution from the member from Grey, and let me say at the outset that I will be wholeheartedly supporting the resolution.

I think there is no question that for those who are wondering why this province is in a state of chaos, who are questioning the mismanagement, all they have to do is refer to the statements made by the members from Cochrane South and Cochrane North. I think that underlines the chaos and it underlines the mismanagement. I think it's a bit early in the day for members in this Legislature to receive a sanctimonious, patronizing, holier-than-thou statement by any member of the government while this province finds itself mired in a state of chaos.

I want to speak directly to the resolution itself. I think we recognize that right now the conservation authorities pay their taxes on land but receive the money back from the province in terms of a rebate. The government has cancelled that rebate program. What that has as a result is, of course, that the conservation authorities now have an expense which they otherwise did not have.

My area of responsibility is found within the Credit Valley Conservation Authority. I know there are many people here from their own conservation authorities. We recognize that conservation authorities are made up of men and women, dedicated individuals who are committed to a purpose: preservation of environmentally sensitive lands. I think that people in the past, in the present and in the future will be the beneficiaries of the tremendous work that is done by conservation authorities throughout this province.

So the government has now cut a program which will without question increase the costs for conservation authorities. But they've not just done that; they have also reduced the amount of money that they are going to be receiving through the expenditure control plan.

So it is not just that they have cancelled a program which increases the expenses; they have also at the same time said to the conservation authorities, on very short notice, "Your revenue will also be reduced." So this is, without question, a double hit on conservation authorities, and I know from mine, as being representative of many throughout the province, they are doing the very best they can to deal with the realities of a fiscal nature that the province finds itself in, and I want to deal in a short while on that.

What happens when you have this double hit to the conservation authorities? Firstly, it may very well be the conservation authorities will not be able to acquire more lands by will or by grant or by gift, and they won't be able to because they won't be able to afford to pay the taxes on the land which has been offered to them. I think we all suffer if that becomes an obstacle for a conservation authority in any jurisdiction to acquire lands.

Secondly, as a result of the cancellation of the rebate program, it may very well be -- and I do not fearmonger, as members of the government would have the general public believe in terms of the opposition or third party -- but it may very well be that conservation authorities will go into default in terms of realty tax payments. They may very well have to go into default because of the fact that not only has the rebate program been cancelled but also the amount of money that they're going to be receiving has been reduced, and that leaves one with very few and very narrow options.

Thirdly, it may result, and I think the word is most likely "will" result, in a greater burden on local municipalities. In this respect, I think that we recognize that the smaller the municipality, the fewer number of people, the lower the tax base, the greater the burden, and I think that the government has not recognized the impact that that will have on municipalities across the board, especially the smaller municipalities, as a result of its action.

Lastly, in terms of the impact, I think in principle it has always been the objective of governments, and I do not include the present government in this respect, that it is in the best interests of this province that conservation authorities acquire land, environmentally protect land. I think that has always been that principle. This cancellation of this program really erodes the principle that has been in this province for many, many years. And I'll tell you, as a result of that, we and our children will suffer.

If conservation authorities are impeded in doing the work that they have done so well in the past and if they're impeded in doing that work in the future, it is not just us in this Legislature who will suffer, but it is also going to be our children and our children's children. So it is not just the cancellation of a program, as important as that program is, but it is also striking at the very principle of what conservation authorities have been doing so well in the past, have been asked to do, have been promoted to do, and that is acquire environmentally sensitive land.

Again, the members of the government say, "Well, you know, we only have X amount of dollars," and they speak in that what has become too obvious patronizing way. Conservation authorities, let me tell you, have put forward to the government a blueprint. They have said: "We recognize the problems. We have looked at the ways in which we can save moneys." They have put forward a blueprint, a blueprint which in their opinion would save many millions of dollars.

The Minister of Natural Resources said he's going to take a look at it, but that is not enough and I think the conservation authorities in the province recognize that it's not enough. There has to be a commitment by the government and a commitment by the Premier that not only will the Minister of Natural Resources take a look and be part of that blueprint, but also that there will be a commitment by the government that all ministries who are affected will be part. If that is not the case, then I have very strong reservations about whether that blueprint program will in fact succeed.

There has to be a commitment by the government that they will bring in all ministries that will be affected to really take a look at that blueprint.

Conservation authorities are not just saying, "More, more, more"; they are saying, "We recognize the fiscal position of this province, we are ready to deal with it, we have a blueprint for success," and I think it's the responsibility of the government to start to listen to the men and women who man the conservation authorities in this province.

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I would like to, first of all, congratulate the member for Grey for bringing in this resolution. It's very important at this time to bring to the attention of the government the seriousness of its budgetary cuts relative to the conservation authorities.

I would also congratulate the member for Simcoe East for his detailed explanation of the past history of conservation authorities and the service that they have given to Ontario over the years.

We realize that cutbacks are necessary in order to control spending and to control deficit, and that's not the discussion here this morning. The member for Cochrane North indicated that we were trying to fight cutbacks that you were trying to put in the budget to balance your books. That is not why we're here this morning at all. The reason we're here this morning is, somehow, the Ministry of Natural Resources has put what you might say is a double whammy on the conservative authorities. To correct the situation, all you have to do is restore the tax rebates. The other 10% or 11% cuts that have been imposed, they can deal with that.

Mr Wood: Which hospital do you want to shut down to get that?

Mr Jordan: Don't confuse the issue. I say to the member over there, if he would give us a commitment this morning that his ministry would reinstate the tax rebates while they bring all the ministries together that are involved in this and get them around the table so that we can come up with one-window shopping for environmental control in the province of Ontario --

Mr Wood: They're meeting.

Mr Jordan: They're meeting, but I say, in the meantime, that we put a hold on this tax rebate so that the conservation authorities are not with their backs to the wall, getting ready to dispense with land.

Mr Wood: The budget said no.

Mr Jordan: Never mind the budget; you wouldn't even let us debate it. Do you want us to debate it this morning or what?

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Jordan: In talking with some of the members of the government, who have the power to make a decision on this resolution, I wonder in their discussion if they really understand what the conservation authorities do across the province of Ontario. The conservation authorities are Ontario's only community-based environmental protection agency, and I stress community-based. They're Ontario's only watershed-based resource management agency.

The conservation authorities represent 497 municipalities and 11 regional governments. They have a 50-year proven track record of delivery. Of all the groups across this province that provide a service to the people, this is the last group that needs to be cut by what amounts to 32%, when you take the tax rebate and the overall cutback to the conservation authorities.

So I ask the members of the government this morning to think about an accountable, effective and efficient way to balance its books if that's what its objective is -- sometimes I wonder -- but to please this morning understand that they cannot hit the conservation authorities for 32% and other groups for 10% or 11%. To correct the situation, and it's very simple, just put that ruling on the tax rebate on hold. Reinstate the tax rebate and let us get together and have meetings and get this problem resolved.

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I'm very pleased to rise in support of my good friend the member for Grey in his resolution toady with respect to conservation authorities and restoring some fiscal sanity from the provincial government's perspective in helping out the conservation authorities.

I don't have time to read the entire resolution, but he has said, "The conservation land tax rebate should be immediately reinstated to conservation authorities, and the government should seriously consider and implement the concepts outlined in the Blueprint for Success," which is a blueprint, a plan, that has been put forward by the Association of Conservation Authorities of Ontario as a helping suggestion to this government, which is in such chaos and such a mess that it needs advice and helpful comments from its various transfer partners.

As the member for Wellington, I represent four conservation authorities: the Grand River Conservation Authority, represented today by Allan Holmes, the general manager, and Archie MacRobbie, the chairman, and I'm pleased to welcome them here today; the Maitland Valley Conservation Authority; the Credit Valley Conservation Authority, and the Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority. I have four that I represent and I've spoken to most of them with respect to this issue. They're very, very concerned.

This particular resolution deals with two major issues: the funding issue and the alternative plan that's been put forward by the conservation authorities. From the tone of the debate from the government side, I still believe it does not fundamentally understand what conservation authorities do and the importance they have to their communities.

Interjection.

Mr Arnott: Well, you don't fundamentally understand what you're doing then, because they have three sources of funding: the provincial operating capital grants; the municipal levy, the money they receive from the municipalities on their watersheds, and the conservation land tax rebate. In partnership with municipalities over the last 50 years, they've done an outstanding job of delivering programs on a very cost-effective, cost-efficient basis.

With respect to the Grand River Conservation Authority, we had a meeting this morning with members from the watershed. They were all invited. I was informed, and I was shocked by the statistics of how this government action is going to affect the Grand River Conservation Authority. They pay about $1 million in taxes to the local resident municipalities, the authority does, and this cancellation of the conservation land tax rebate means that $500,000, money that was formerly coming to the conservation authority from the government, is no longer going to be coming.

What it means to this authority is a 30% cut in the operating budget of the Grand River Conservation Authority, and that means important programs will not be delivered.

I don't even have to get into the social contract, because that's going to be discussed later, but that has had a profound impact and it's creating a lot of difficulty for all the government's transfer partners, including the Grand River Conservation Authority and the other conservation authorities. It's making it extremely difficult to plan. The longer this government continues to waffle on this issue, it's creating a great deal of uncertainty and a lot of problems with respect to budgeting and planning in these important agencies.

Mr Wood: What's your solution, Ted?

Mr Arnott: My solution is very simple: Take that blueprint and read it. You should read it and you should recognize it for what it is.

The Deputy Speaker: Please address the Chair.

Mr Arnott: Mr Speaker, the minister's parliamentary assistant has challenged me. But that is the solution.

There is a great deal of constructive suggestions within that particular document and it's very important that the government take a good, hard look at it. I know that the association of conservation authorities is bringing forward more detailed suggestions. Don't get caught up in what the civil servants tell you, because it's very, very important and you yourselves espouse this. This particular government says you've got to deliver service, especially with respect to environmental issues, on an ecosystem basis, and conservation authorities are ideally set up to do that precise thing. I would challenge you to look at it in those terms.

I'm very concerned about the fact that the government has indicated that it's not going to support this resolution. I would encourage them in the 15 seconds that I have left to please, please rethink their position. It's very, very important. It's an important issue to rural Ontario. This is another fact that we are constantly having to put forward, that rural Ontario is getting the short end of the stick with this government on just about every single issue.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Grey, you have two minutes to reply.

Mr Murdoch: First, I would like to thank my friends from the Liberal Party, Steve Offer and Jim Bradley, for supporting us on this. Their support is greatly appreciated. Also, Ted Arnott, Leo Jordan and Al McLean from the Conservative Party, to be here to speak on this important matter today, I certainly thank you.

The problem is, we've got this government over here that doesn't understand anything. You've heard everybody over here tell you and you still don't understand. You're sitting over there, cackling and heckling away, and you don't even know what you're talking about. The important thing is, we've got to get these guys to understand something.

So far, there's no one left in Ontario whom you haven't got mad at you. You got voted in, you were an environmental power, you always said the environment was important, and now you're just throwing it away. All kinds of environmentally sensitive areas are going to be lost to this province just because you people don't understand, and you don't take the time to understand things.

There are two things in this resolution. One is that you should implement the concepts of the Blueprint for Success that the conservation authorities gave to you. You say you can do that. Okay, that's one. We've got you half way. But the tax rebate has to be given back immediately. The conservation authorities must pay their taxes to the municipality. You can't download; you can't keep downloading on everyone. So take a look at that and at 12 noon, when we vote on this, look inside yourselves and say, "We've got to give that back."

You can do that. I know some of you over there are smiling, but I know you can come back here at 12 noon and vote for this resolution. Then go to your Minister of Natural Resources and have the money reinstated because the conservation authorities certainly need this money. There's lots of other land out there that needs to be bought which won't be if you don't change your attitude over there. That is the problem: your attitude. You always say you consult. The trouble is that you've never listened to anybody and you're going to have to start doing that pretty soon.

The other thing, before I go is that I'd like to thank everybody coming from Grey and Bruce. I certainly appreciate them all being here. I can't name them all, but I hope they hang around for 12 o'clock and we'll see how the socialists vote then.

The Deputy Speaker: The time for the first ballot item has expired.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Mrs MacKinnon moved private member's notice of motion number 15:

That, in the opinion of this House, since promoting trade, investment and job growth is the leading priority of the government of Ontario and that the North American free trade agreement is, on balance, not in the best interests of the province because this agreement:

(1) will cause net job loss in Ontario;

(2) will apply downward pressure on environmental standards;

(3) will apply downward pressure on labour standards;

(4) makes no mention of labour adjustment for workers and since the federal labour adjustment assistance remains inadequate because of the job losses caused by the FTA;

(5) encroaches into more areas of provincial jurisdiction, and will limit Ontario's ability to implement its economic and social policies and because the deal intrudes on more areas of provincial jurisdiction than previous trade agreements, such as regulation of investment, financial services and standards;

(6) will not end American trade harassment;

(7) will treat Canadian and Mexican energy reserves differently, and

(8) will make the devastation of the FTA worse;

Therefore, this House urges the government of Ontario to oppose the implementation of the North American free trade agreement by all possible means.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the member has 10 minutes for her presentation.

Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): Promoting trade and investment in job growth is the leading priority of the government of Ontario, and in the opinion of this government, the North American free trade agreement is not in the best interests of the province.

The cabinet committee on North American free trade provided a public forum for debate and it is interesting to note that the majority of presenters to the committee were against NAFTA.

The free trade agreement has already cost Ontario 45,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector and we will lose thousands more with NAFTA. The reasons are basic and simple. Mexico has low wages and weak enforcement of labour standards. In order to compete, some Ontario firms will have no choice but to demand workers reduce their wages or face layoffs. Some companies will think about diverting their investments and relocating to areas where production is cheaper. Either way, the Ontario worker pays.

We also know jobs will be lost as industries relocate to places where lack of enforcement of environmental standards makes production cheaper.

NAFTA also threatens the jobs of workers who are least able to rebound from sudden unemployment: those with less than a grade 9 education, those over 45, and those who are female.

On balance, the price that the people of Ontario will have to pay for NAFTA is too high. It threatens the jobs of tens of thousands of workers and it limits Ontario's ability to build the kind of economy and society we desire.

Ontario will also be faced with the responsibility of looking after workers who will lose their jobs because of the NAFTA deal. In 1988, Prime Minister Brian Mulroney promised, and I quote, "the finest labour adjustment programs in the world" to deal with workers displaced by the free trade agreement.

Well, that didn't happen. Instead, the federal government cut and diverted unemployment insurance funds and failed to deliver on its commitment to fund worker training and adjustment programs, and there's no indication that Prime Minister-elect Kim Campbell will be any different. The federal government has already stated it will not provide further labour adjustment programs, despite the fact that NAFTA will increase the vulnerability of about 350,000 Ontario workers in industries sensitive to imports. Workers in these industries are typically older, less educated and female.

The federal government has failed to recognize the adjustment consequences of its trade policy and has not delivered on its commitments to fund training and adjustment programs. Instead, provincial governments and workers have been left to bear the burden of NAFTA's effects on the economy and the workplace.

A fundamental concern about NAFTA is that it doesn't fix a critical flaw of the free trade agreement: Ontario's lack of a guaranteed market in the United States. When the free trade agreement was introduced, the federal government promised assured access to the United States market and an end to harassment of our goods crossing the border. Unfortunately, that has not happened, and there is nothing in NAFTA that remedies the problem.

What is the federal government's position on the issue? Every time there is another trade dispute concerning soft lumber, steel, hogs, pork or automobiles, the federal government's response is: "Don't worry. We'll win most of the cases eventually."

As our Premier Bob Rae noted recently in a speech at McMaster University, "The pursuit of trade should be something that we do in order to increase our quality of life and to improve the nature of our community." The Ontario government believes its ability to pursue those goals is harmed by NAFTA, and for a variety of reasons.

NAFTA prohibits the provincial government using its authority to favour Ontario firms and inhibits our ability to pursue policies in the interests of Ontario. For example, NAFTA would not permit Ontario to reserve access to the forestry and fishery industries for Ontarians. NAFTA also encroaches into many new areas of provincial jurisdiction, including the regulation and enforcement of environmental standards, financial services, land transportation and speciality air services. None of these were covered by the free trade agreement.

NAFTA will also allow foreign corporations and investors to challenge provincial measures they consider contrary to NAFTA. To make matters worse, the province has no means to participate directly in the general dispute settlement process.

The NAFTA agreement will also have a serious impact on women. Ontario women in the manufacturing sector typically earn their living in labour-intensive industries which have already been hit hard by free trade. Since the free trade agreement came into being, Ontario has lost tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs. Under NAFTA, the Ontario government believes the province will lose tens of thousands more as companies lay off workers or relocate to places where labour is cheaper and goods cost less to produce.

In addition, women dominate the workforce in several manufacturing industries that are among the most likely to suffer under NAFTA: knitting mills, textiles, apparel, footwear, and printing and publishing. The price Ontario women will have to pay is too high: lost jobs, downward pressure on wages and labour standards, and lack of labour adjustment programs.

For all these reasons I have just mentioned, it is clear to me and my government that the North American free trade agreement does not serve the best interests of Ontario, and it is also very clear to the majority of the residents in this province that they do not support this agreement either.

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): I welcome this opportunity to join in this debate and try to put what I hope is a clearer view on what we are talking about. This morning I was interested to see a headline and a story in the Toronto Star, and it says, "Only the NDP understands the real world out there." This was a quote from the federal leader, Audrey McLaughlin, "Only the NDP understands the real world." After listening to the member speak, I can only say that it is only the NDP which hasn't a clue as to what's happening in the real world out there.

Let me tell you: One of the things that people do not understand, and don't understand because as I say they live in an artificial world, is that if low wages were the only criteria for industrial success, Haiti would be the industrial capital of the world. Our competition does not come from low-wage countries. Our competition comes from Japan, it comes from Sweden, it comes from Germany, it comes from the UK, it comes from the United States, all of which are very high wage countries. Their wages are higher than ours.

Cheap labour is not a problem. It is only a problem in those jobs that Canadians will not work at anyway. What we have to do is we have to establish a system where we become truly competitive.

There is another fallacy. The member states that with the approval of NAFTA, suddenly Ontarians and Ontario workers are going to be put at great disadvantage. I challenge you to go out into any supermarket, any department store, any kind of a manufacturing facility and identify one Mexican product that is there. You won't see it. The trade between Canada and Mexico is infinitesimal.

When you consider that the combined trade between Canada and the United States is $250 billion, the combined trade between Canada and Mexico is less than $3 billion and it is not a factor in our economy. They have no effect. To suggest that because NAFTA is going to come into effect, suddenly everybody and every manufacturer in Ontario is going to go to Mexico is patently absurd. For the member to even suggest that indicates that she has no knowledge of what the real world is all about.

Let me tell you that we are in the situation that Canadians have far more to gain than they have to lose in NAFTA. We are marginal players in this deal, and I say this advisedly, because our trade between Mexico and Canada is so small. But consider this situation: If the United States and Mexico were to enter into an agreement and Canada was not a part of that, why would any foreign investor who was looking to establish a manufacturing facility put it into Canada? If they put it into the United States they get the benefit of the FTA and they would get the benefit of an agreement negotiated between Mexico and the United States.

We have to make sure we are at the table, that we are part of a loop of a North American trading bloc so we can make sure we remain as competitive as we can. To suggest that it would be in the best interests of Ontario and of Canada not to participate in that particular trading arrangement makes no sense.

I want to add that there's no question that there are problems with the agreement; hopefully, we can negotiate the best kind of deal we can in some of the side agreements that are being discussed.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): You sold them out already.

Mr Kwinter: I am not. I am defending Canada. I am defending our ability to be competitive.

I think you should understand, and I'm sure you know, that for every dollar that you have in your pocket, a third of that is because of trade. We are a heavily trade-dependent jurisdiction. Unfortunately, the government doesn't understand that, and it's gone about and shut down every one of our trading offices around the world without realizing that is the lifeblood of our economy.

If you take a look at our counterparts in the United States, for every dollar they have in their pocket, only 10 cents is there because of trade, so we are three times more trade-dependent than our American neighbours.

What does that mean? That means we have the opportunity; not because of NAFTA, but just because of the profile that NAFTA has given to the opportunities that are in Mexico. We have an economy in Mexico that has over 80 million people. Marketers would salivate at the idea of accessing an 80-million-person market, yet Canadians, by and large, have no real presence.

There are some, and I'll give you an example because I happen to be involved in it. Magna has opened a plant in Puebla in Mexico. They have opened it in spite of NAFTA. They're there, they're operating. But they are providing opportunities for a Canadian company to expand, to be able to create employment, and that is what we talk about.

If you had suggested to anybody that we should not deal in the United States, people would run you out of town, because that is where we get the stimulus for our economy. I can tell you, in Mexico there is an opportunity for Canadian companies in a very, very expanding market, but even more importantly, it has a land link to Canada, which means it's easy to get access to. The city of Monterrey, Mexico, which is a burgeoning industrial centre, is closer to Toronto than Calgary is, and there are opportunities for Canadian manufacturers, Ontario technology, Ontario knowhow, to penetrate that market.

Canada has far more to gain in accessing the Mexican market than Mexico has in accessing the Canadian market, because Canadians have got a highly sophisticated, industrial base; there's no question. Mexico has some competitive advantages in the way of agriculture because of its climate and because of its subtropical location, but generally speaking, we have an opportunity to make sure that there is a market that will benefit Canadians and particularly benefit Ontarians.

The questions keep coming up that suddenly, environmental standards are going to be lowered, labour standards are going to be lowered, that people are going to flee to Mexico because of the cheap labour. Let me also disabuse you of a fact that everybody seems to talk about. All you have to do is talk to Frank Stronach, the president of Magna, and he will tell you that the labour rates in his plant in Mexico are not that different from the labour rates of his plants in Ontario.

There's no question that they're lower, but you also have to understand that they are lower because they haven't got all the fringe benefits we have and some of the advantages we have. But the idea that there are people working in these high-tech industries and being paid pennies is just not true.

There's also no question that there are lots of people in Mexico who will work for very, very low wages because they live in very, very low wage areas. But the kind of work they do is not the kind of work we have to be concerned about. If we have to be concerned about that work, then we have to be concerned about Taiwan and Thailand and China and Hong Kong and Singapore and Poland and Brazil and every other low-wage country in the world. That is where the competitive situation is, and I can tell you that the traditional supporters of the NDP are not prepared to do the jobs that command that kind of wage.

What we have to do as a country if we're going to be competitive is establish ourselves as the higher value added producers. I can tell you that manufacturers have no hesitation in paying whatever the job requires as long as the payment of that salary is tied to productivity. We have a problem where we demand high salaries for low productivity. What we have to do, if we are going to be competitive, is develop this ability to create higher value added jobs.

I want to talk again for a minute about the FTA and the canard -- that's the only word I can use to describe it -- that there are hundreds and hundreds of thousands of jobs lost in Canada as a result of the FTA. If this FTA is so pervasive, how come it seems to have affected Germany, the United Kingdom and Japan, where every one of those jurisdictions is going through severe economic times and severe downsizing? What is happening is that we are involved in a global restructuring. We've gotten to the point where there are more players in the game, more people who are able to compete with us.

As a result, if we're going to be competitive, we're going to have to get our act together and become more productive.

The NDP puts forward this motion at a time when it is bringing in its social contract, where it is saying that in order for us to be competitive, in order for us to get our fiscal house in order, we're going to have to downsize, we're going to have to get rid of employees, we're going to have to roll back wages. That is exactly what is happening in industry -- exactly.

When the Premier stands up and says that the civil service, the public service employees, cannot be exempted from the same thing that's happening in industry, that they have to play their part and understand that in order to become competitive we're going to have to downsize and get ourselves to the point where we are productive, that is exactly what has happened to industry. Industry reacted a lot sooner than government did, unfortunately.

What has happened is that we have this juxtaposition, this coincidence. At a time when there is in the industrialized world global competition, global recession, we have a downsizing of industry and a consolidation. The NDP in its wisdom has decided that this is all as a result of FTA, that this is what has happened: The free trade agreement has devastated us.

Let me just put a couple of things into the record so that you can put it into context, because the figures are similar in Mexico, as they are in the United States.

Before the free trade agreement, 80% of all of the trade in goods and services between Canada and the United States was duty-free, 80%. Of the 20% that was still tariff-laden, the average tariff was 10%, and that 10% was going to be removed over a period of five or 10 years. We are now into year 3, so the amount of influence of the FTA is minimal. It's only a fraction of that 20% that is being compounded.

Mexico is in exactly the same position. At the present time, 80% of the trade in goods and services between Canada and Mexico is duty-free. Of the 20% that still attaches duty, the average is about 10%. It's very similar to the United States.

What is going to happen with NAFTA is that there will be an ability to make some good adjustments, hopefully, to the FTA. I was the first one to criticize the FTA, not because I was opposed to free trade but because I was opposed to the deal; I thought it was a lousy deal and could have been better. I think NAFTA has made some corrections; not as many as I would like to see, and hopefully that will be resolved in some of the side agreements.

But the point is that in order for us to maintain the standard of living our citizens want, we are going to have to expand our trading horizons. To look at a market of over 80 million people, one that is in our hemisphere, one that has wonderful opportunities, and suddenly turn our back on it is folly of the highest order and is unworthy of a government.

What has happened is that there is a knee-jerk reaction, a feeling that if it's Mexico, it is bad. I have to refer to some of the members of the back bench who were critical of the fact that I was out promoting Canadian technology in Mexico. They thought that was a bad thing. We have to pick up the slack of what is happening, and Mexico presents that opportunity.

The Deputy Speaker: Your time has expired.

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I'm pleased to add a few comments to the debate. I want to thank the member for his comments. As we all know, he's been actively involved in the trade issue and I think said it very well.

In fact, he said exactly what I was going to say right off the bat. Most of you on the other side don't even realize -- I should set it up by telling you I worked for Livingston International, which is the largest custom broker here in Canada; not to start a commercial for them, but I'm familiar with what the products were. We made our money by paying duties and taxes on behalf of people.

Prior to the free trade agreement signed in the late 1980s -- I will ask the members on the other side; they may know if they heard -- what percentage of the products came in duty-free? Most people say 10%, 20%, 30%. I tell the members opposite, as a former custom broker, 80% of the product between Canada and the US came in duty-free prior to the free trade agreement. Prior to the free trade agreement the duty on computers, for example, which is one of our largest imports from the United States, was 3.5%. I know, because our company paid the duties and taxes on behalf of many the computer companies.

So 3.5% was the duty that was paid. The value of the Canadian dollar has more to do with trade between Canada and the US than the free trade agreement does, I say to the members on the other side.

When they talk about blaming all our ills, I want to show you the budget that was introduced by your Treasurer, your budget, Ontario Budget 1993. Your Treasurer; I want everyone to know whose budget this is. I want you to turn to page 5 of that budget. Remember, I'm saying Floyd Laughren and Bob Rae's budget. These are their figures on trade. I will read it verbatim.

"So far this year, Ontario's international exports are up by more than 11%." Canadian auto exports are up 26%. "Manufacturing shipments have risen by more than 6%. Who says...Ontario can't compete? Who says Ontario workers are not among the best and the most productive in the world?"

Mr David Winninger (London South): You do. You just change your message depending on the day.

Mr Carr: We've got this member saying that all the jobs lost are due to free trade. Meanwhile, his government is saying that the percentage of increase has gone up. Quite frankly, we have lost the same amount of jobs since the Berlin Wall has fallen. You can blame it on free trade or the Berlin Wall; it makes about the same amount of sense. In March of this year we had the highest exports out of the province of Ontario to the United States we have ever had in the history of this province, even though they are in a dramatic recession as well.

I want to touch briefly on one little thing before I go. This government, in a time of fiscal restraint, spent $300,000 going around the province with a program to fight the free trade agreement; $300,000 at a time when we're cutting back nurses' salaries, teachers' salaries. We had a day care for second-rate cabinet ministers, the Minister of Agriculture and Food, to go around and produce a report that cost the people of Ontario $300,000. What do you think that report said? Premier Rae, prior to the start of that committee said, "We're against the NAFTA agreement." Guess what happened after? Guess what they said? "We're against it."

We spent $300,000 of taxpayers' money for political purposes to basically try and prop up your stupidity and your federal counterpart's, who, I might add, I heard last night saying she's going to fight NAFTA. Well, she's going to have a pretty good time, because she's at 8% in the polls. She is now pretty close to Preston Manning. All you need to do to a federal New Democrat today, or in Alberta or in British Columbia or anywhere, is say two words to make them recoil in fear, jump over banisters, anything to get out of the way.

Those two words are "Bob Rae," because Bob Rae has done more to destroy jobs in the province of Ontario than any free trade agreement, and I say -- and I have respect for the member personally -- you should be disgraced to come in and present this resolution when health care, education, every part of the provincial responsibility is going down the tubes. If you really have the gumption to believe what you say, then do the honourable thing, resign your seat and run federally. I don't think you've got the guts.

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): It gives me great pleasure to have this opportunity to contribute to this debate. The free trade agreement has been a disaster. Thousands of unemployed factory workers in my riding of Peterborough could certainly tell you that -- 2,000 since February 1990. NAFTA will be more of the same.

I remember Pat Carney being quoted as saying of the Americans and the free trade negotiations, "We gave them everything they asked for." I can't believe that a government could sell us out as the Tories have done and still be taken seriously by the electorate. They can't do enough for the United States. It's heads you win, tails we lose. But this deal is not even good for the people of the United States, and for the people of Mexico it's terrible.

The member for Wilson Heights was implying that this was going to be a good deal all around. Tell that to the mothers of malformed babies in the maquiladora districts of Mexico. Tell them life has got --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. There is one person who has the floor. You all had your chance to debate. It's her time. The member for Peterborough.

Ms Carter: The standard of living has gone down there and we're being told that good jobs don't move. Well, a job in a car industry can be very good in Ontario and then when it gets to Mexico the pay is quite different and it's a low-wage job.

This is a deal made by and for the big multinational corporations. It aims to get us all organized in a way calculated to most maximize their profits. The interests of ordinary people, and that includes most business people, simply do not come into it. Of course we need to trade, but this is not the deal we need. Trade should be from a solid base of integrated local and regional enterprise and from a base of regional concern where people support each other and protect their environment. Business which has no loyalty to any population anywhere is liable to end up destroying far more wealth, freedom and happiness than it creates. Look at Haiti: It's a free-for-all and it's a hell on Earth.

This is a democratic country and a democratic province. Democracy was not handed to us on a plate; it had to be won from a ruling class which would much rather have continued to run things its own way. Now they're trying to take that democracy away from us through the back door, leaving us with a democratic structure and process which will henceforth produce governments which have no power to govern. All the important decisions will have been made, laid down in the terms of the free trade agreement and NAFTA.

The federal government is not only giving its own power away without any interaction with public opinion; it's giving away the powers of the provincial governments too. Those governments have had no input whatsoever in the negotiation of the agreement. They have not been consulted. The people have not been consulted, and yet they will be bound, and tightly bound, by the outcome.

The agreement is too long and complicated for ordinary folk to read or understand. It is easy to tell lies about it, but valid

interpretations are available to those who will listen. The deal on pharmaceutical products alone should be enough to turn Ontarians away from this agreement. Patents will now be protected for 20 years, but it was the now-threatened generic producers who were investing in creating jobs in Ontario and their products which were helping to keep down the cost of Ontario's drug benefit plan.

I had a bus company representative complaining to me in my riding that an Alberta company was encroaching unfairly on his territory. That's nothing compared to what will happen when any North American enterprise has to be treated the same as local firms. I believe in utilizing local firms wherever one happens to be. That's the way new, small enterprises get started and have a chance to compete. This concept of equal treatment is being carried to the point where people can be prosecuted for in some way coming between a would-be exploiter and that which he wants to exploit.

Environmentalists in BC, who don't want to see greedy outsiders or anyone else cut down our priceless heritage of old-growth forests, are already being sued. Where will insanity like this stop? Might we one day be prosecuted for living healthy lives and depriving drug companies of their expected market?

We're already committed incredibly to exporting energy to the United States, whether we want to or not, and at the same price we charge Canadians. Taxpayers here are paying to construct pipelines to take natural gas to the States. There has been talk of exporting water on a large scale. Nothing in NAFTA would prevent that. Will we one day send our Great Lakes water to California so they can grow vegetables to export back to us? Shall we as taxpayers have to pay for the megaprojects to achieve that?

We have to have the right to make progress, progress in protecting our environment, in achieving full employment, in protecting workers' rights and labour standards, and in making sure that the high living standards made possible by modern technology and the resulting increased productivity per worker don't just lead to extreme wealth for the few and a life of poverty and misery for the rest of us.

With our new technology, we should all be able to live well without needing to work long hours and without needing to destroy our environment. We have the means as never before of making a good life for all, including the disabled and the elderly and yet we already see our living standards and our employment levels sliding. Don't let's give in without even a fight to the selfish few who want to exploit the rest of us. We have work to do to make this a better world for us and our children. Why should we surrender to faceless, non-elected officials the tools that we need to shape that world? We may never get another chance.

I was really proud of the big turnout in Peterborough when the cabinet committee came there and of the points that were raised. We shall keep up the fight.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I'm very pleased to rise today and speak on this issue. I have to say from the outset that I think we see a demonstration of intellectual dishonesty by the members of this government when they refuse to admit that free trade has in fact worked extremely well.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Withdraw. Apologize.

Mr Turnbull: Overwhelmingly, and it has already been spoken about from the government's own budget --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Please take your seat. I would ask the member to be careful in your choice of words. I just want to remind you, be careful in your choice of words.

Mr Turnbull: Mr Speaker, I would like to withdraw the word "intellectual."

The government has refused to admit that its own numbers indicate that exports are up. The numbers are very clear that since we've had the advent of free trade we have had greater exports to the US in history. We must first of all talk about what has happened with free trade before we move on to discussing NAFTA.

The Canadian Manufacturers' Association survey, which was released in June 1992, said that more than half of those surveyed reported that they had had no lost market share in Canada, whilst 39% of them said that their exports to the US had grown, and that indeed is why the numbers are up.

What we are seeing with respect to job losses is quite clearly due to world restructuring. We heard the member for Wilson Heights debating earlier and pointing out the fact that you cannot blame free trade for the loss of jobs in Germany or Sweden or Japan. That's a fact. It is world restructuring. We live in a very different world and we must be competitive. The kind of competition that we have to provide is with high-tech jobs, with jobs that our people are trained for and must be better trained for. We cannot expect to be able to compete with the lowest-wage countries in the world in the low-scale jobs.

That is a fact and that is a fact which has been accepted by Germany and Japan a long time ago.

Turning to NAFTA, we must understand that 80% of all Mexican goods currently enter Canada duty-free. However, that is not the case of Canadian goods going into Mexico. The majority of Canadian goods are subject to fairly high tariffs. What does Mexico need? They need steel, they need financial services, they need transportation material, they need machinery, they need telecommunications, they need computers and they need cereals, all goods which Canada is extremely well positioned to provide them if we can remove those trade barriers. We see an excellent market opportunity with respect to Canada.

We haven't heard any statistics from the government which support its argument because quite frankly there are none. The fact is that we need to be competing in Mexico. You could say, "Well, we've got the free trade agreement with the US, and let Mexico have their NAFTA." The trouble with that argument is that what happens is we then have a hub and spoke situation where the US becomes the hub and it has free trade with Canada and also free trade with Mexico, but we do not have free trade with Mexico directly and Mexico with us.

The essential element is access to the market, access which we are currently denied but which the Mexicans are not denied to our market. It has previously been said that if you go into Canadian supermarkets and look for Mexican products, and I absolutely agree, you will be hard pressed to find Mexican products, and you won't find Mexican high-tech products because there are none.

Let's just talk for the moment about one of the concerns that has been expressed, and it is a legitimate concern, and that is the environment. The suggestion is that if we allow Mexico into a trading relationship with the US and Canada, somehow our environmental standards are going to be dragged down. That is patently wrong. The reason for that, I will point out the fact: that it has been quite clearly identified that the countries with the lowest standards of environmental protection are very poor countries.

Colin Isaacs, who is an expert on the environment, has pointed out the fact that those poor countries cannot afford to put in those environmental standards. However, Mexico has been making great strides in the last few years towards improving its environmental standards, and guess what? US, Canadian, European and Japanese companies that have moved into Mexico, to the greatest extent have applied the same environmental standards to their manufacturing that exist in their home markets, so we are in fact moving towards improving the environmental standards in Mexico.

As we improve their standard of living, through freer trade, we will arrive at a point where they will be able to afford to improve --

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): At $4 a day?

Mr Turnbull: Once again we have one of the uninformed hyenas from the NDP screaming across the floor at the fact -- he has no facts.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Let me read you part of the procedures and what it says so clearly. It's 23(k). Let me read it for all the members to understand what it is all about: "Uses abusive or insulting language of a nature likely to create disorder." That is very clear. So language used in the House should be honourable. I would ask you please to follow that.

Mr Turnbull: Mr Speaker, I would point out that the member for Durham East regularly screams across the floor.

Mr Mills: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The member for York Mills called me a hyena, and I think that's unparliamentary and I ask him to withdraw that remark.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I did not hear that expression, but if he did say that, I would expect him to apologize.

Mr Turnbull: Mr Speaker, I withdraw that remark.

I will point out that this is a government that has said NAFTA would steal our blood, our water and our culture. There is absolutely no evidence of this. This is a government which set up a committee, at taxpayers' expense, with no members from the opposition on that committee, and from the very outset said that they were going to travel the province and find evidence against NAFTA. They said from the very outset that no matter what was said in evidence, they would still oppose NAFTA.

Now, Mr Speaker, I have a fundamental question for you: Is it right for taxpayers' money to be spent in this way, for the government to form its own committees to travel the province, ignoring the opposition and ignoring the input from those people who come forward to bring testimony? If they say from the outset that it doesn't matter, that they're going to oppose it, you really have to question why $300,000 in such hard times would be frittered away in this way.

Let's just look further at the question of sovereignty. NAFTA provides for national treatment. National treatment: What does that mean? It means that the same rules apply to the country importing as the domestic companies. Funnily enough, they are the requirements of the GATT. Is this same government going to suggest that the GATT is a bad idea? I suppose they probably do, because they are flat-earth believers. They believe that if we continue to sail on, we're all going to fall off the edge of the world. Well, I've got news for you.

We've found that it's a round earth, and you have to have a little bit more confidence in the future and at least base that confidence on the facts that have come to the fore since the free trade agreement has been put forward.

The Deputy Speaker: Your time has expired.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I've only got about three or four minutes. We're dividing the time equally among our caucus and I understand we have an agreement to give some time to the honourable member for St Catharines, Mr Bradley, as his caucus for some reason took all the time up on him. So let me make a couple of points very quickly.

Members opposite of the Conservative Party said a couple of things in their debate and I just want to touch on them really quickly.

They talk about intellectual dishonesty on the part of this government being opposed to NAFTA and talk about how the free trade agreement has worked so well. Well, I would like to say to the members of the third party that I wish you would go talk to the unemployed. I wish you would go and talk to the people in this province, all across this country, who have been directly affected because of the free trade agreement.

We need not go far. We can go to the Scarborough van plant just down the road here in Toronto. Here was a plant with 3,000 workers that was the most productive van plant, the most profitable van plant within the GM chain. We need to go look around St Catharines-Niagara Falls in regard to the glass plant that GM has, the block plant. The same story: the most profitable and the most productive and highest-quality plants they had in the GM chain. They were closed. I wonder why?

They were closed simply because of one reason, because of the rules now, because of the dismantling of the Foreign Investment Review Agency that those scoundrels in Ottawa allowed to happen, and I call them scoundrels, Mr Speaker. Sorry if it's unparliamentary. I'll sort of withdraw it, but I'm kind of upset.

The other point in regard to the free trade agreement is that it allowed those companies to say, "We are no longer going to take a look at a Canadian content policy. We're going to take that away because we lost it under the dismantling of FIRA and we've lost it under the FTA."

It came down to this: GM had plants somewhere in the United States, and in some cases in Mexico, depending on what plant we're taking about, that had a larger production capacity than some of the plants that we had here in Canada. Then it became a question, "I can fit my small plant into my bigger plant," and it was strictly a decision on the part of GM in order to rationalize its operation. But under the old rules, before free trade, before the Tories came to Ottawa, they could have never done that.

So shame on you, you Conservative people, for suggesting that free trade has no effect on the workers of this province. If Ontario finds itself, like the rest of this country, having to deal with the mess that we're in right now with the lack of revenue, where we are in regard to expenditures, it's because there are less people working.

The problem we have in this province, like the problem we have across this country, is a problem of joblessness. When people don't have work and they don't have income, they don't pay taxes, and then it costs the government a heck of a lot more money. Why are we there? Not because of Bob Rae's socialist Ontario. I would directly say because of Brian Mulroney's vision of a multinational agenda being instituted in Canada, and shame on you for that.

I've still got a minute left; I'm doing well.

The other thing I would like to say in regard to the NAFTA committee that the province of Ontario put forward is that one of the things they said was that the government had no business putting together the NAFTA committee because, after all, this was a federal issue, and why would the provincial government even get involved? It was none of our business.

NAFTA directly goes to the heart of the powers of the provincial governments of Canada on a number of fronts, and I don't have time to list them. Do you know what the sad

part is? It's that with the industry within Ontario and Canada, the third party, and in some cases the Liberals, said we didn't have the business to do this. They said we should just sit there and not say anything.

Unfortunately, the only people who may turn this thing down in the end are our American brothers on the other side of the river who are turning around and saying NAFTA's not a good idea for the United States either. Now we see the American administration trying to put side deals on NAFTA because it's so God-awful. They also recognize what it means to their economy.

With that, Mr Speaker, I'm going to end. We don't have enough time. I cede the floor to the other member, but I'm firmly opposed to NAFTA, firmly opposed to the Tory agenda, and will be proudly voting in favour of this motion.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): May I ask for consent to use two minutes of the NDP time?

The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to use two minutes from the government side? There is unanimous consent.

Mr Bradley: I want to thank the members in the New Democratic Party for that opportunity to take two minutes. I simply want to address my remarks to the member and to this resolution, in favour of the resolution.

I think the member deserves credit for bringing this resolution forward, because it is an issue which is very important to the province of Ontario.

As the former Environment minister in this province, I recognize, and members have mentioned this, the pressure that there will be on Canada, and Ontario as well, as part of Canada, to lower our environmental standards because we'll be facing Mexican environmental standards. That would be very detrimental.

In addition to that, we have labour laws in Ontario, laws that have been fought for over the years, that do not correspond to those in Mexico. It is my view that, again, it would be detrimental to people in Ontario, particularly those who are protected by labour legislation, if they were forced to compete with those who don't have the same kind of legislation; in Mexico, for instance.

In addition to that, I recognize that President Clinton is having second thoughts about this particular agreement. If we look at what's happened with the free trade agreement and its contents and its lack of clarity and lack of sanctions for those who would violate it, we see that we are presiding over the de-industrialization of the province of Ontario and much of Canada. Much of that can be attributed to the free trade agreement, the specific agreement that was signed by our federal government with the federal government of the United States.

The last point I would make is that there was not sufficient opportunity in the federal House to debate this particular issue. Members were limited to about 10 minutes apiece, and it was rammed through by the federal government without the necessity of ramming it through. For this reason, I think it's opportune for this House to express its view on this issue, and I intend to vote for the resolution which is brought forward by the member for Lambton.

Mr Marchese: I strongly support this bill and will make some comments with respect to it.

The Canada-US free trade agreement has devastated Ontario unlike any other province -- it's devastated Ontario -- and the North American free trade agreement will make it worse; it will not make it better.

Trade should not be an end in itself. It should, as the Premier said, improve the quality of life for all Ontarians, for all Canadians. It has not done that and it will not do that.

Let's look at some of the things that the free trade agreement was supposed to do. I want to speak to that in order to bring some clarity that I don't think Mr Kwinter was able to bring.

It's difficult to separate with scientific accuracy the effects on the Ontario economy of the recession and the high dollar on the one hand, and the effects of FTA. It's true that it's difficult. We suspect the high dollar's had a devastating effect. We suspect that the recession has had a terrible effect on our economy; we know that. But it's fair to say and fairly accurate to say that we lost anywhere from 50,000 to 100,000 jobs just because of free trade. Many, many people will agree to that.

What we say is that the architects of the free trade agreement claimed there would be more jobs in Ontario and throughout Canada. That's what they said. It isn't true. It hasn't happened. They also said that some of the studies that some of these people on the other side alluded to predicted growth in Canadian manufacturing employment of 15%, 20% or higher. That hasn't happened. It's a lie. There are no studies to support it. In fact, what we have is evidence of losses of jobs, and the North American free trade agreement will do that as well.

Remember the adjustment program? The federal government said, "We will give money for adjustments in the event of job losses." There weren't any dollars and the workers of Ontario had to shoulder those costs. Under the North American free trade agreement, there will be further losses and we will have to shoulder those losses as well. This North American free trade agreement is going to devastate the people of Ontario, our economy, our investment and our sovereignty.

The Deputy Speaker: Your time has expired. The member for Lambton, you have two minutes to reply.

Mrs MacKinnon: I wish to thank all members for participating in the debate. This is obviously a subject that can bring out the best and the worst in people.

As a member of a farming community, I would like you to consider the following things.

Interjections.

Mrs MacKinnon: Yes, you're the one who said I was going to sit for five years.

I would like you to consider the following as a farmer. The farmers in Lambton county are devastated this week, particularly the pork producers in my riding and across Ontario and Canada. They are reeling from the latest decision made by the panel earlier this week that sided with the US Department of Commerce.

The US claimed that live hogs exported from Canada to the US in 1989-90 were subject to countervailable duty rates, because of our national tripartite system, to the tune of some $20 million. This is devastating to farmers all across Ontario and all across Canada.

How can we possibly stand here and defend something like the North American free trade system? The constant harassment of our hog and pork industries has not been ended by the free trade deal. Indeed, there seems to be a flagrant disregard of this deal by many American industries and within the US government.

Once again, I thank the members very much for this debate. I believe it has been worthwhile. And thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for putting up with the House this morning.

The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for private members' public business has expired.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): There's time left, Mr Speaker. I'll use it.

The Deputy Speaker: It's their time.

Mr Stockwell: I may be one of them for all you know.

The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles Morin): We will deal first with ballot item number 15 standing in the name of Mr Murdoch.

If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mr Murdoch has moved private member's resolution number 14. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1200 to 1205.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing until your name is called.

Ayes

Arnott, Bradley, Callahan, Caplan, Carr, Carter, Cousens, Cunningham, Curling, Daigeler, Drainville, Eves, Harnick, Harris, Johnson (Don Mills), Jordan, Kormos, Lessard, Mahoney, Malkowski, Mammoliti, McLean, Mills, Morrow, Murdoch (Grey), Runciman, Sorbara, Stockwell, Tilson, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Wilson (Simcoe

West).

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please rise and remain standing until your name is called.

Nays

Abel, Bisson, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Duignan, Frankford, Haeck, Hansen, Harrington, Hayes, Hope, Klopp, MacKinnon, Marchese, Martin, Mathyssen, Murdock (Sudbury), North, Owens, Rizzo, Wessenger, White, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood.

The Deputy Speaker: The ayes are 32; the nays are 28. I declare the motion carried.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now deal with ballot item number 16 standing in the name of Mrs MacKinnon.

If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mrs MacKinnon has moved private member's resolution number 15. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion, please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1209 to 1214.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing until their name is called.

Ayes

Abel, Akande, Bisson, Bradley, Callahan, Caplan, Carter, Cooper, Coppen, Curling, Dadamo, Duignan, Fletcher, Frankford, Haeck, Hansen, Harrington, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Kormos, Lessard, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Marchese, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow,

Murdock (Sudbury), North, Owens, Rizzo, Wessenger, White, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Wiseman, Wood.

Nays

Arnott, Carr, Cunningham, Daigeler, Harnick, Johnson (Don Mills), Jordan, Murdoch (Grey), Sorbara, Stockwell, Tilson, Turnbull, Wilson (Simcoe West).

The Deputy Speaker: The ayes being 39 and the nays 13, I declare the motion carried.

All matters relating to private members' business are now completed. I will now leave the chair and the House will resume at 1:30 this afternoon.

The House recessed at 1218.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TORONTO MAPLE LEAFS

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): It is with great pleasure that I rise today in the House to pay tribute to the Toronto Maple Leafs, for whom we had a reception.

Not since the days of Darryl Sittler, the Tiger, Lanny McDonald and Borje Salming has the city of Toronto been so completely galvanized in support of their team.

It was not only the success of the Buds in the playoffs which captured the imaginations of so many hockey fans but the manner in which it was executed.

Led by the likes of Doug Gilmour and Félix Potvin, this team truly exhibited grit -- as a Liberal, I appreciate that -- determination and heart. These are the qualities that are the most important to speak of when one recalls the success of this year's team. When one considers that the most avid, enthusiastic and energetic of all hockey fans across this province are, at the same time, our most precious resource -- children -- the importance of these qualities becomes magnified.

I would think that we would all agree that no matter the area of human endeavour, if one approaches it with dedication and a belief in oneself, success and pride will certainly follow.

In this light, I suppose we all owe a special thank you to coach Burns who taught all of us that having the temperament of a human furnace can pay huge dividends in terms of extracting a team effort from all players.

So I say to the Toronto Maple Leafs: Congratulations and good luck, especially those concerned with the ceremonies being conducted tonight at the Metro Convention Centre. Who knows, perhaps a few familiar faces from this year's team calendar will not only be at today's opening ceremonies at the corner of Front and Yonge but some day permanent residents.

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I'm pleased to join and extend my congratulations with other members of this House to the Toronto Maple Leafs for an outstanding season this year.

Today I had the honour of attending a reception and buffet lunch here at Queen's Park to honour the 1992-93 Toronto Maple Leafs.

I want to thank the team, its coach, Pat Burns, and manager Cliff Fletcher for giving Toronto eight months of spectacular hockey. We watched eagerly in front of our TV sets and at the Gardens as the team played 21 games in 42 exhausting nights.

The Leafs took the Norris division, finishing Detroit and St Louis in seven games before facing the LA Kings in the Campbell conference. It was an exciting and remarkable journey.

The Leafs were a tremendous boost to tourism in Toronto. Restaurants, taverns, retail establishments and hotels all profited from the success that the team enjoyed.

Fans will have many fond memories of the guts, passion, heart and desire which the Leafs displayed over the course of their season and in the playoffs. I think Mike Foligno expressed the sentiments of Maple Leafs fans perfectly when he told reporters after the final game, "When you sit and you look at how far this team has come in such a short time, nothing leaves this room but pride."

I know that I speak for all members of the House when I say, congratulations to the Toronto Maple Leafs for creating magic on ice.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mr Tony Rizzo (Oakwood): I rise today to state my position on the social contract issue.

We must not forget that generations of Ontarians have worked hard to create our unique system of public services. We must not forget above all, and I quote from the Public Service Coalition proposal text, that "the people of Ontario elected this government in part because of the strong New Democratic commitment to public services.

"In this critical time, when workers, families and communities have been put under enormous economic strain...the people of Ontario are counting on the Ontario government to protect and improve public services."

Ontarians understand that to protect and improve public services we have to control the deficit. What is paramount for our government is the general interest of all citizens. I know and understand very well the union movement's feelings towards the government's initiatives, and I praise the unions' contribution to the bargaining process. I'm sure that a little more goodwill on all sides will result in successful negotiations during the next period.

More cooperation in more areas between government, public and private employers and the union movement is the key to the success of contemporary states. Eventually, labour will become a full partner in the decision-making process under any government. It is time the union movement is recognized as a legitimate presence at all tables where important decisions are made, inside and outside the workplace.

HEALTH CARDS

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): The Minister of Health recently admitted that the cost of fraud related to health cards is at least $20 million. Other estimates say that fraud costs the taxpayers of Ontario hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

The Provincial Auditor's 1992 report raised a number of concerns: the inaccuracy of registration information, the lack of a formal process to ensure regular updates of information, the issuance of thousands of cards more than there are persons in Ontario, the lack of an adequate system of control that would allow health care providers to verify the validity of health cards.

The government of Ontario intends to cut over a billion dollars in health care services. Instead of addressing directly and swiftly the issue of fraud and the abuse of our health system, the Minister of Health chooses to control the number of physicians allowed to practise. She chooses to close hospitals. She will soon dictate the conditions surrounding the delivery of medical services. How long will it be before she starts issuing prescriptions?

I recently introduced the Health Insurance Amendment Act, 1993. Bill 44 is supported by the Ontario Medical Association. It will reduce fraud, improve the administration of health cards and save costs. The time has come for a new health card with photo identification and expiry date.

AVALON RETIREMENT LODGE

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I'm pleased to bring to the attention of this House the 10th anniversary of the Avalon Retirement Lodge in my riding of Dufferin-Peel. The anniversary marks a milestone for the Avalon retirement home as it continually strives to achieve high standards for both its residents and staff. The work of everyone involved should be acknowledged. The staff have, in a time of restraint, shown how the needs of the residents and the imposed rules from Queen's Park can somehow be juggled to accommodate everyone.

I have an opportunity to personally see the commitment and professionalism of the staff at the Avalon on a regular basis. I would like to offer my personal thanks to the staff for going above and beyond the call of duty, so to speak, in serving their customers, the seniors. It is very appropriate that Avalon retirement home is celebrating its 10th anniversary in June, during Seniors' Month.

I would also like this government to realize that Avalon retirement centre is an example where private enterprise can and does operate a seniors' home admirably within the very stringent guidelines of the Ministry of Health, and indeed does so very well. We should be holding up these enterprises as examples of standards to achieve as being province-wide, and not force them out of business by unbalanced funding and unnecessary administrative duties.

TORONTO MAPLE LEAFS

Mr Peter North (Elgin): Today it is with great pride and pleasure that I stand on behalf of the government of Ontario to heartily congratulate the Toronto Maple Leafs hockey organization for a tremendous year. We had the pleasure of welcoming them to this Legislature today.

The people of the province, and indeed across Canada, were given a special gift this year as they sat glued to their television sets witnessing a certain mix of youth, experience, talent and heart. This group of players and management personnel took us back to the glory years as they worked us through the Detroit series, powered us through the St Louis series to the Norris division championship. Next came the Kings in LA, where our team took it to the seventh game and the last minute, within one minute of the Campbell conference championship and the Stanley Cup finals.

Although it was a special time for the members of this club, it is hard to put into words the meaning of your accomplishment to the youth of this province. All over the cities, towns and villages there still continue today the screams and yells and cheers of young boys and girls playing road hockey, emulating and acting their favourite players and their favourite plays of a certain game that shone in their minds. Your accomplishments gave them pride, hope and an image to look up to that knows no boundaries and crosses all lines.

A special thanks to Steve Stavro, Cliff Fletcher, Pat Burns and staff for presenting us with a team of this calibre, and the support they extend to this organization.

The fans of the Toronto Maple Leafs and hockey as a whole at all levels have been treated to something very special, something we will not soon forget.

We look forward to great things in the future. We look forward to the screams and yells of young people, later in the spring, playing road hockey and cheering for their favourite team, the Toronto Maple Leafs.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Yesterday I asked my Tory friends where they stand on the social contract legislation. Judging from question period yesterday, the Conservatives are still talking out of both sides of their mouth. When the NDP began the social contract negotiations, Mike Harris told Bob Rae that he could count on his party's support. By the end of April, Harris said: "I will support your legislation. Bang, bang, bang, first, second, third reading." But by May they had changed their tune.

Members of the Conservative caucus said, and I quote: "This process is flawed from the beginning. It's a fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants process." One week Mike Harris says, "I support the social contract talks" --

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, the member for Willowdale.

Mrs Caplan: -- the next week Mike Harris says --

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Willowdale, please come to order.

Mrs Caplan: -- "We told you the social contract talks could not possibly succeed."

On Monday, June 14, the Conservatives said they might support the legislation in principle. Yesterday Mike Harris said in one question, "You have our support," and in the very next question he was critical of the legislation. I want to know, where do the Conservatives stand on the social contract legislation, Bill 48?

We have an NDP government that makes policy changes with the wind, with help of course from opinion polls. It seems that the Tories are no better.

I ask them -- now that Lyn McLeod has explained it to you; I hope you realize this draconian legislation is bad, bad, bad -- where are you? Where do you stand? The people of Ontario want to know.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Leeds-Grenville has the floor.

POLITICAL MEETING

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): This weekend the provincial council of Ontario's New Disintegrating Party will meet in Gananoque, in my picturesque riding of Leeds-Grenville. On their heels will be an angry horde of the brothers and sisters burning their NDP membership cards to protest Premier Rae's offer of "take it now or we'll just take it all later."

This event, which promises to be half soap opera and half circus, will I hope be all profit for Gananoque tourism operators, who have seen their trade decline by 33% in the last four years. It is ironic that the NDP government will do more to help the local economy by having a political barbecue serving Bobby on a bun than it ever did through any of its half-baked economic initiatives.

It is our hope that the influx of these protesters will more than double the town's population on Saturday and that they will be as generous in their contributions to the coffers of local businesses as they once were in their contributions to the coffers of the NDP.

So on behalf of Gananoque, known as the Gateway to the Thousand Islands, I'd like to say welcome to CUPE's Sid Ryan, to OPSEU's Fred Upshaw and to all those protesters who will be travelling with them. Bring your spouses, bring your kids. What the heck, you can even bring a Liberal, because they really know how to spend and abuse a credit card.

Take a leisurely boat tour of the Thousand Islands. Visit the Thousand Islands Wild Kingdom or take in a play at the Thousand Islands Playhouse. Bring your money and stay the weekend.

FOLKLORE FESTIVAL

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): I rise today to recognize Folklore, an annual multicultural festival that took place in Kingston last weekend. For the $6 price of a passport -- children under 12 free -- visitors could tour 17 countries at nine locations throughout the community.

The kickoff occurred the previous Sunday with a colourful, vibrant parade down Princess Street to city hall. In touring the pavilions, I was impressed by the opportunities for people of all ages to participate in cultural activities from preparing food to singing and dancing. Esp