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

October 20, 1986

33rd Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L050 - Mon 20 Oct 1986 / Lun 20 oct 1986

APOLOGY

COCHRANE NORTH BY-ELECTION

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

NATIONAL SMALL BUSINESS WEEK

HAMILTON HEALTH FACILITY

APPLE PRODUCTION

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

EQUAL PAY FOR WORK OF EQUAL VALUE

DAUGHTERS OF ENGLAND

PORTUGUESE COMMUNITY

INTERVENER FUNDING

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

IMPORT SURTAX

TARIFFS ON SOFTWOOD LUMBER

ORAL QUESTIONS

TARIFFS ON SOFTWOOD LUMBER

EXTRA BILLING

TARIFFS ON SOFTWOOD LUMBER

DAY CARE

TARIFFS ON SOFTWOOD LUMBER

LANDFILL SITE

OPP RELOCATION

TARIFFS ON SOFTWOOD LUMBER

PLANT SHUTDOWN

TARIFFS ON SOFTWOOD LUMBER

LEAD LEVELS

BEER STORES

USE OF LOTTERY FUNDS

SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

INSURANCE RATES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TRACO INVESTMENTS LIMITED ACT

PENSION BENEFITS AMENDMENT ACT

ONTARIO LOTTERY PROFITS AWARDS COUNCIL ACT

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES

MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDINARY BUSINESS

TARIFFS ON SOFTWOOD LUMBER

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

APOLOGY

Mr. Reville: I want to apologize to the Minister of Housing (Mr. Curling). In response to a question during a press conference on Friday, October 17, I mimicked the minister's accent. That was ill considered, thoughtless of me and completely inappropriate. It is in no way a reflection of my views.

On Saturday, I telephoned the minister at his home and apologized to him personally. I repeat that apology to the minister in the House today. I did not intend any disrespect towards the minister, and I am very sorry for the hurt I have caused. I would like to thank the minister for the gracious way in which he responded and for his kindness to me.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure the members of the House will accept those comments.

COCHRANE NORTH BY-ELECTION

Mr. Speaker: I beg to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has received notice from the chief election officer that an action has been commenced in the Supreme Court of Ontario relating to the election in the electoral district of Cochrane North.

Assistant Clerk: Dated October 16, 1986, and addressed to Claude DesRosiers, Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, the letter from the chief election officer reads as follows:

"Dear Mr. DesRosiers:

"As required by

section 98 of the Election Act,

chapter 54 of the statutes of Ontario, 1984, I wish to notify the Legislative Assembly that an action has been commenced in the Supreme Court of Ontario contesting the election of Mr. René Fontaine, Esq., in the electoral district of Cochrane North. A copy of the statement of claim is enclosed.

"Yours sincerely, Warren R. Bailie, Chief Election Officer."

The claim reads as follows:

"1. The plaintiff was a candidate in the August 14, 1986, by-election for the riding of Cochrane North.

"2. The defendant and others, including the chief elections officer, the returning officer and David Peterson, leader of the Liberal Party, committed criminal offences and statutory violations before, during and after the election.

"3. The matter is now the subject of an inquiry by the commissioner, RCMP, Ottawa.

"4. The plaintiffs seek to contest the election pursuant to

section 98, subsection 1 of the Election Act, statutes of Ontario 1984,

chapter 54. The plaintiff proposes the action be tried at Toronto. Dated Toronto, October 15, 1986.

Mr. Speaker: That is for the information of members.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

NATIONAL SMALL BUSINESS WEEK

Mr. Barlow: It is my pleasure to remind this assembly that October 19 to October 25 is National Small Business Week in Canada. Small business has become the very backbone of our economy, providing the bulk of employment opportunities in recent years and sailing us through the choppy economic waters of the early 1980s which resulted from the tides of the worldwide recession.

The owners of small businesses are helmsmen for whom I have the deepest respect. They are the dreamers and believers of our society. They are the ones who are not afraid to put in 12 or 14 hours a day and are willing to risk going it alone without the comfort of the corporate canopy.

One of the exciting things that has taken place in the small business community is the number of women who have ventured forth to start their own small businesses. One third of Ontario's small businesses are now owned by women who saw something better for themselves than being slotted into traditional work roles.

To all the men and women of Ontario who dare to participate in the hard work and excitement of owning their own small businesses, I extend my heartiest congratulations and best wishes. I ask the members of this assembly to join the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, boards of trade and other organizations active in the business community in recognizing Small Business Week 1986.

HAMILTON HEALTH FACILITY

Mr. Mackenzie: On Wednesday, October 15, more than 600 people gathered to honour Dr. Robert Kemp of Stoney Creek. The size of the gathering was a small indication of the respect in which this committed local family doctor is held in our community. Dr. Bob has been a force in many community activities, but none more than a determined and ongoing effort to achieve an east-end medical facility in the city of Hamilton. This facility was supported by a previous Minister of Health in 1975 in this House, and I have pushed for it on a number of occasions. The project was endorsed by my predecessor, Reg Gisborn, and by Ian Deans, a former colleague of mine.

At the gathering last Wednesday, it was clearly indicated that the plans for this facility have been in the hands of the appropriate minister, the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston), for a number of weeks now, and people are a little concerned about the delays in getting approval. They also want to be sure that a commitment of $10 million made two years ago by the previous Conservative government to assist in the funding of this facility will be honoured. They believe it will; the indications are that it will; but there has been no formal word from this government that the money is forthcoming.

I hope that in his coming visit to Stoney Creek, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) will be able to set at ease the minds of the citizens concerning this very much needed facility and announce the go-ahead on the project.

APPLE PRODUCTION

Mr. McKessock: Mr. Speaker, you have on your desk fancy red McIntosh apples from Georgian Triangle Apples in Clarksburg, Grey county. It has one of the most modern, computerized packaging and storage facilities in Ontario, and it is proud to display on its box the Ontario Foodland logo.

Georgian Bay is the largest apple-growing area in Ontario. Agriculture seems to have more than its share of problems and risks. Whether it is going to the bank to obtain that loan for what has become a very large and expanded industry or whether it is going out on a limb to pick these applies, the risks are there. Ontario farmers are also there, willing and capable of taking these risks so we can have an abundance of fresh, healthy food at a reasonable cost.

Georgian Triangle also wants me to express to the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) its appreciation for his deep concern for agriculture in this province.

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

Mr. Harris: Recently, the Ministry of Education and the minister, through a press release, sent officials around the province to explain Bill 75. The minister said, "`I would like to encourage ratepayers to contact their school boards as soon as possible to examine their rights under Bill 75 and to find out if trustee elections will be held at their boards,' Education Minister Sean Conway said today." As a result of that, they sent Miss Emond to North Bay to explain Bill 75; advertisements, public meeting, everybody comes.

What happened? Here is what happened. At Miss Emond's insistence, on behalf of the Ministry of Education and over the objections of Mr. Lynch, the director of education for North Bay, the media and the public were expelled from the meeting. According to Miss Emond, "The news media will not be allowed to any similar information meetings being held in Ontario."

This is typical of this Liberal government. The press release says one thing, but the actions of the government may enact something else. This chicanery, this slipperiness, this intellectual dishonesty is insulting to the members of this House, to all the public and to the media. Once again, we all get the back of the hand from this arrogant Liberal government.

EQUAL PAY FOR WORK OF EQUAL VALUE

Ms. Gigantes: I rise to call the attention of the members to the fact that it was three years ago today that a particular member of the Legislature, now the Premier (Mr. Peterson), issued what he called "a clarion call for action" on the issue of equal pay for work of equal value.

Speaking then in support of a private member's resolution on this subject, he castigated the Conservatives, saying: "My friend the minister talked about successful staged programs. I do not know what that means...." He has discovered since. He went on: "We are not just asking for homage to the principle, for pious speeches or for everyone to get together.

We are asking for specific changes in the legislation." A few sentences later he trumpeted, "We are suggesting in this resolution that we move now, not six months or a year from now." Referring again to the Conservative minister, he said: "Now the minister is on trial, and not only by his colleagues in the House and his own party. Some 8.5 million people across this province are looking to him to provide the leadership."

Where is that progressive young man we read of in Hansard for October 20, 1983? Who was that guy anyway? He has had the chance in the past year and a half to provide the leadership, to provide legislation and to ensure equal pay. Has his conscience just gone to sleep?

DAUGHTERS OF ENGLAND

Mr. Callahan: I rise to bring to the attention of the House that in my riding the Daughters of England celebrated their 50th anniversary, having been founded in the good city of Brampton in 1936. There are still five charter members, who were honoured on the particular evening.

PORTUGUESE COMMUNITY

Mr. Callahan: I also rise to congratulate the Voice of Portugal, a newspaper that serves the Portuguese community not only in my riding but throughout Ontario as well. There are some 52,000 Portuguese people -- it would he interesting if the opposition would listen, because the Portuguese people are listening. There are some 52,000 Portuguese members in my riding; I salute them, and I salute the paper. They presented me with a plaque, and they presented one to me for the Premier (Mr. Peterson), which I will be sending around to his seat.

INTERVENER FUNDING

Mr. Andrewes: On June 7, 1986, I asked the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) to address the issue of intervener funding. Recently, in its annual report, the Environmental Assessment Board made reference to the fact that the courts had quashed the board's decision to award costs in advance to a group of interveners.

In the Niagara region, many citizens' groups are preparing their case to fight the proposed toxic waste treatment and storage facility and are patiently waiting for a word of encouragement from the Minister of the Environment regarding intervener funding. Dr. Chant, chairman of the Ontario Waste Management Corp., has publicly indicated his intention to fund intervener groups, but he feels that OWMC, as the proponent for the facility, should not act as judge and jury. When can we expect the Minister of the Environment to take action?

14:18

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

IMPORT SURTAX

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: Today, I would like to address the United States congressional action of last Friday which saw both the House of Representatives and the Senate pass legislation that would allow the US customs service to charge an import surtax on all imports entering the US for a period of three years.

Mr. Brandt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I remind the minister the rules of the House require that copies of the statement be circulated. As critic for our party, I do not have a copy of the statement.

Mr. Speaker: The standing orders state that there must be two copies sent to each party. Are there copies?

Mr. Brandt: I have now received a copy.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: This latest US action should be interpreted by all Canadians as nothing less than a further nontariff protectionist barrier aimed at Canadian exports.

Let there be no doubt as to how Canadians see this latest move by a US Congress that is growing more protectionist. This action effectively counters the March 18, 1985, Quebec summit declaration in which Prime Minister Mulroney and President Reagan undertook -- and I quote from that declaration -- "a joint effort to establish a climate of greater predictability and confidence for Canadians and Americans alike to plan, invest, grow and compete more effectively with one another...."

The US import surtax works to undermine the Canada-US free trade negotiations currently under way. It also undermines a number of long-standing bilateral agreements between Canada and the US, such as the auto pact, which have served both economies well for more than 20 years. On the multilateral front, this surtax clearly flies against the recent commitment undertaken by the US at the special session of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade contracting parties, at which all members agreed to take no further protectionist measures.

The federal government must prepare a strong challenge against the surtax via the dispute settlement mechanism of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Other avenues of recourse also must be urgently explored.

Last year, such an import surtax would have cost Ontario exporters close to $100 million. The negative consequences that will result from this action could have serious, long-term implications to the trading relationship between the two economies. Therefore, it is important that the government in Ottawa takes prompt and forceful action to address the situation.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any further ministerial statements?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) has a statement that he would like to put to the House today, but he has not entered the House yet. Perhaps, with the permission of the House, we could proceed with questions and revert.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The government House leader suggests that the House may consider reverting. If members wish, we will wait for a moment.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Here he comes.

Mr. Speaker: I understand the Minister of Natural Resources has a statement.

Mr. Brandt: I have a brief response to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. I think all of us in this House find the US action with respect to an import surtax a very distasteful measure, but I also find it passing strange that this minister would immediately begin pointing fingers at the federal government in connection with this problem.

His government has given no indication whatever, since the whole discussion on trade negotiations emerged some months ago, about any willingness to remove some of these trade impediments. They know full well that we have a very substantial surplus in our trade dealings with the US. They know that is an aggravation to some US politicians, and yet under no circumstances have they given any support whatever to the federal government in its attempts to try to remove some of those impediments and some of those problems.

I urge the government to take very seriously the rising protectionism in the US and to sit down and begin negotiating on some of these very critical matters.

TARIFFS ON SOFTWOOD LUMBER

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Yes. I should wait until the copies have been circulated.

Mr. Speaker: The minister may proceed.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker. This may be the first time this has happened, but now the minister does not have a copy of the statement.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before we proceed, I will just check. Is the minister prepared?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Okay.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I would like to make sure everyone in this House understands this government's position regarding the United States Department of Commerce 15 per cent countervailing duty on Canada's softwood lumber exports to the United States.

There is no doubt in our minds that we absolutely oppose this decision. It is unfair and unacceptable. I want to assure honourable members that this fight is far from over. I also want to make it clear that we should not view this as a final decision. The Commerce department will announce its final decision on the subsidy on December 30.

We will do our utmost, in conjunction with our Canadian colleagues in government, industry and labour, to convince the American government of the unfairness of the preliminary finding.

In 1983, the Commerce department ruled that the Canadian stumpage systems were generally available and could not, in effect, be a subsidy to the forest industries. Since then, the systems have not changed. Stumpage fees in Ontario and in other provinces have actually increased -- by some 25 per cent in Ontario alone. I find it very difficult to understand the logic behind the about-face by the US government in now deciding that the stumpage systems are countervailable.

I would like to bring the House up to date on what has been happening on this issue between the provincial governments and the federal government during the past few months.

In September 1985, officials from the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology, together with representatives from the federal government and the forest industries, mapped out a program to provide Ontario assistance to the softwood lumber industry, using MITT's field offices in the United States. Senior officials of that ministry, working with Canadian consultants across the US, subsequently developed US allies in support of the Canadian position.

In October 1985, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) went to Washington and addressed the softwood lumber issue with US politicians and members of the administration.

Since July 1985, I have personally attended a number of meetings with my provincial and federal counterparts, and officials from my ministry attended frequent sessions and were in close contact with their colleagues.

The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil) and I met repeatedly with other provincial and federal ministers along with senior officials from our respective ministries. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology met with James Kelleher on June 17 regarding this matter, and with Pat Carney on September 10.

Within weeks of the initial announcement of the US industry's petition for a tariff in 1986, we met with provincial and federal ministers in Vancouver to come up with a strategy that would best serve the interests of this country and those provinces with the most to lose -- in particular, Ontario, British Columbia, Alberta and Quebec.

We recognize the importance of this issue to our province. We are talking about jobs here in Ontario. We are talking about up to $600 million in Ontario's softwood exports. We have been strongly supporting our industry in its fight against this case.

We had very serious reservations about the approach of the federal government to negotiate a settlement before the preliminary determination. We made our reservations about this approach clearly known from the beginning, but it was only after the federal government was committed to negotiate that the provinces were brought along.

It is clear that all those involved in Canada must work together. This is why I welcome an opportunity to meet tomorrow with my provincial and federal colleagues. We have felt from the beginning, and we still feel today, that we should be a member of the Canadian team and work together to avoid disaster for the softwood industry in this country.

I must emphasize that the interests of Ontario, our industry, labour and communities are paramount. This issue has an impact on Canada as a whole. This is a national issue where we need prudent national leadership. It also has an impact on the forest industries as a whole, not just the lumber business, and on the vitality of the economy of Ontario. This ruling, if accepted, creates a dangerous precedent and one we must avoid at all costs. The decision that has been rendered is both unfair and unacceptable. We oppose it and we will continue to oppose it. In this, we are also representing Ontario's forest industries.

Earlier today, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology and I met with senior officials of the forest industries and we have their wholehearted support for our position in this countervail. Ontario government officials met today with their provincial and federal counterparts and representatives of industry and labour to plan a strategy. Tomorrow, as I mentioned, I will meet with other provincial and federal ministers on this subject.

We are adamantly opposed to this unfair ruling and we will fight it with all the resources at our command.

Mr. Pope: With respect to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology and the Minister of Natural Resources and their roles in the softwood lumber issue in the US and the countervail application, I think we have again had clear evidence from the Minister of Natural Resources and this government of their failure to understand the issues, their failure aggressively to protect Ontario's interests, their failure to aggressively protect Ontario's jobs and their failure to look after the single-industry communities in eastern and northern Ontario.

They now claim that more than a year ago the Premier went to Washington and addressed that issue, and that somehow that sole and unique contact, as the minister describes it, was adequate. The Premier is great at gearing up the public relations and the press releases for all sorts of nonsensical announcements, but there was not one word on his role in the softwood lumber issue coming out of Washington.

They called him "Premier Anderson." That is what a hit he made in Washington. There was not one word about his addressing a serious bilateral issue that affected Ontario's policies, because we are talking about Ontario stumpage policies; not one answer emanating out of the Washington meetings whatsoever; no understanding at all by this government of the seriousness of the problem. It is not prudent national leadership we need; we need some kind of provincial leadership by the government of Ontario. We have seen none.

Because of it, we now have a depressed market for lumber sales. We have the possibility of all sorts of contests for domestic markets among Quebec, British Columbia and Ontario producers. We have uncertainty in the market, such that Tom Inglis was commenting on it for Great West Timber last Friday. We have that kind of uncertainty right now and we have potential significant job losses in all parts of the province.

This is a very major industry, one of the most important for Ontario's economy, and the government blew it, plain and simple, in the trade negotiations.

Mr. Grossman: I want to address that very same issue and to point out to the government and its leader that the parts of northern Ontario most affected by the duty that has been imposed include some of the communities he visited not very long ago.

I mention places such as Longlac and Geraldton, where more than 30 per cent of the labour force is employed in the softwood lumber industry. It was in those communities that he was telling them they would have to go out and solve their own problems, that he was not able to do anything for them, that they would have to stand up on their own two feet and find a way to solve their problem locally.

Meanwhile, his Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, his Minister of Natural Resources and he himself were doing nothing whatsoever to stop the most devastating blow that could face those small, struggling communities. They were sitting here. They travelled to Tokyo. They were travelling to Seoul, Korea, where 60 people turned out to hear them. They were travelling to Peking and were doing nothing in Washington to help the people in Longlac and Geraldton, whom he was telling, "Go off and solve your own problems."

This is absolutely the weakest, most fragile display of government inaction, hand-washing and walking away from the people of northern Ontario that has ever been seen in this Legislature. The Premier should go back to Geraldton and apologize for his inaction, which is taking jobs from the people he gave the back of the hand to.

Mr. Rae: We really have been exposed to an extraordinary display of the wet noodle from the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, starting on Thursday. On Thursday the Minister of Natural Resources told the House, "Well, they requested some 37 per cent, and the number that has been handed down is 15 per cent." The interjection from the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology was, "Quite a bit was done."

The only thing the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology can say today in response to the law that was passed last week by the American Congress is to tell us it was passed and to call on the federal government to do several things: "It is important that prompt and forceful action be taken by Ottawa to address the situation"; "the federal government must prepare a strong challenge."

The people of Ontario expect the government of Ontario to stand up for the people of Ontario. They are not going to rely any more on Brian Mulroney. Everybody in the country has lost faith in Brian Mulroney. The only one who believes him any more is the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

It is reasonable to expect that this government should have been down in Washington in force, as was requested by our members on the select committee on economic affairs. We should be there all the time, fighting for the interests of Ontario, fighting for the people of Ontario and not leaving it all in the hands of the federal Tories, because if we do that, we are going to be all the poorer for it. We are paying the price for that now. We are paying the price for his inability to defend the interests of the people of this province, and the time for that practice is ended.

The time for the government to start getting down there and doing the job itself is long overdue. The horse has already left the barn, brother. It is time it started to do its job.

Mr. Wildman: I regret very much that today we got more support in the Washington Post than we got from the Minister of Natural Resources. In Washington, that journal editorialized that the main reason for the increase in Canadian softwood exports into that country was exchange rates, not subsidization, and called the decision unfair. Yet we have a limp response by this government to the suggestion that was made last week.

In fact, this is a slap in the face for the Canadian industry. As my leader indicated, this minister and his colleagues thought last Thursday it was not so bad. What does he have to say in his statement today? He lists a number of meetings he had with federal and provincial officials in Canada. What does he say he is going to do? He is going to have more meetings with federal and provincial officials in Canada. He says he and this government had reservations about the suggestion of a 10 per cent impost, as made by the federal government and the government of British Colombia.

He did not make those reservations public; nobody knew about it. He is doing it now only after the suggestion and assistance of the American industry to bring about this 15 per cent interim countervail.

It is not enough for this government to say that it will meet with federal and provincial officials. This government should be making our case in Washington where there are allies for our position. There are US senators who represent consumer states and who understand that this will mean a loss of jobs in their states. The government should be making that position clear in the US and in Canada.

Instead, the government is going to meet James Kelleher and those guys. They sold us out. This government is going along with it. When are we going to get some action from this government to support our industry, which is going to face further and further competition from the British Columbia industry, as a result of the imposition by the American government?

When are we going to get some action in Washington by this government rather than going to Ottawa and hoping that Pat Carney and her ilk will help us out when they are prepared to sell out this country at every turn?

Mr. Foulds: It is embarrassing to see this government try to respond to this issue. It failed last week, it failed last year and it is failing now. It has failed to protect jobs in northern Ontario and it has failed to protect Ontario's wood industry. Now the government is going to have more meetings to do it.

This is an Ontario issue. This is an issue the members opposite should be speaking on publicly. This is the one chance they have where they should withdraw from the free trade talks until this kind of issue is --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Martel: Maybe we could have another conference.

Mr. Speaker: I have not recognized the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel). That completes the allotted time for members' responses.

14:37

ORAL QUESTIONS

TARIFFS ON SOFTWOOD LUMBER

Mr. Grossman: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. His colleague, in his weak and too late statement, said this afternoon, "We made our reservations about this approach" -- that is, the approach to negotiate a settlement -- "clearly known from the beginning, but it was only after the federal government was committed to negotiate that the provinces were brought along."

The minister's colleague neglected to tell this House in his statement whether the Ontario government supported the federal proposal to implement a stumpage fee increase of 10 per cent. Could the minister share with the House whether he agreed to that?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: The series of events was that the federal Minister for International Trade went to Washington, an announcement was made concerning her visit there, and that message was later brought back to the provinces.

Mr. Grossman: I have invited the minister to indicate the position of his government on whether it supported the offer to raise stumpage fees by 10 per cent. That calls for a yes or no answer.

Before the minister attempts another shot at it, we have checked with Don Campbell, assistant deputy minister of the US branch, Department of External Affairs, who told us explicitly that Ontario did support the federal government's offer.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: As I previously mentioned, the federal Minister for International Trade went to Washington and discussions were held there. Subsequent to that, she announced they would look for a settlement of 10 per cent. That was later relayed to Ontario and the other provinces.

On a couple of occasions, I personally, as well as my ministry staff, have made her aware that we were not happy with that at all, but it was a national consensus given by both her and the trade minister from British Columbia.

Mr. Grossman: The minister may couch this in as long an explanation as he wishes, but the public of Ontario and the opposition are going to demand to know whether the minister was part of that national consensus, which he alleges was in place, which supported the offer of a 10 per cent stumpage fee increase.

I will repeat my question so the people of Ontario who are watching and listening can understand whether the Ontario government fought against the 10 per cent increase or proposed settlement. Did the minister in any way agree to a 10 per cent stumpage fee increase: Yes or no?

14:40

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I mentioned to the member the series of events when that was brought back and put before a meeting of all the representatives of the provinces. All the provinces agreed with it, and we went in with it to support it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: You may worry about that as long as you want, but this is question period. New question.

Mr. Pope: To the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology: Did the government of Ontario support the eight to 10 per cent solution before it was announced by Pat Carney in the federal House?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I cannot tell the member whether it was supported before she announced it in the House, but I can and did tell him about the series of events when we objected to her making that announcement before it had been relayed to us as a province.

Mr. Pope: That is completely meaningless nonsense. We want to know whether the minister was part of the national consensus to arrive at the eight to 10 per cent proposal made by Pat Carney. Did he agree? Was he part of the national consensus when that was announced?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: After the announcement had more or less come out of Washington, there was a meeting between Pat Carney and the ministers of trade from across the country. There was agreement by both the federal government and the other provinces, and as I said, Ontario reluctantly went along with that decision.

Mr. Pope: Quiet reluctance is no defence. The minister did not publicly voice his concern when the announcement was made. He did not publicly voice his concern until he concocted this line of defence for this statement today. Never once before today did he announce that he disagreed with the eight to 10 per cent offer of Pat Carney.

In supporting that proposal, what studies has he done and what studies is he prepared to give us today that demonstrate what the job loss will be in northern Ontario in the forest products industry and how many mills will have to close down because of his acquiescence in this proposal? He refused to give them to me last Friday. Why will he not produce them?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member has already asked two or three questions.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: Those are questions the member should maybe also be asking of Ottawa as to the role it played in this issue. We are not looking at jobs being lost in the north. We intend to fight this decision so that there is no duty placed on it at all.

Mr. Rae: What the minister appears to be telling the House today is that the government intends to fight its own position. Although the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) did not have the courtesy or the courage to admit it categorically in his statement to the House, the minister has now admitted that Ontario went along and endorsed the 10 per cent position.

Does he not agree that the impact of that decision, which he and his government endorsed with the Mulroney Tories, cut our negotiating team off at the knees when it comes to resisting the view of the Department of Commerce that we are subsidizing our lumber industry and that our exports to the United States are subsidized? Does the minister not realize that is the impact of the 10 per cent position he took, and does he not realize he has succeeded in undermining, subterfuging and sabotaging his own case to the US?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: We believe this case can be reversed; in other words, there will not be a 10 or eight per cent surtax. We believe that with us working with the federal government, the other provinces and the industry itself, that decision can be reversed so there will be no charge and we will go back to the 1983 decision.

Mr. Rae: The minister has become an expert at scoring on his own goal. Does he not realize that Ontario has now committed itself publicly to a position of agreeing to a 10 per cent surcharge? He has agreed with that. He said that to Pat Carney. He is now part of that team. With what credibility can the minister go to Washington and say that 15 per cent is unfair? Will he go there and say, "Fifteen per cent is unfair but 10 per cent is fair"? Is that the position he will be advocating in Washington when he takes the position of the government of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: As I stated, we take it that the 10 per cent does not stand, and we will be fighting to reverse the whole issue and bring it back to the 1983 figure.

Mr. Rae: It is literally unreal to hear this minister say that his current position is that the position he agreed with before is no longer the position of the government of Ontario. Is the minister saying that a subsidy of two weeks ago is no longer a subsidy today? Is that the position he is taking?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I am saying our original feeling on this whole matter was right; in other words, it should not have been supported. Now the other provinces and the federal government will agree with us that we should have fought it to the end.

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Health about the new situation with respect to extra billing. I would like to ask him initially about the situation affecting a number of women. I am not in a position to give the minister names in the House today, because the women who have spoken to me have asked that I not reveal either their names in public or those of their doctors.

Over the weekend, I received information with respect to three additional cases, one that involved a payment of $200, another a payment of $300 and the third a payment of $350. That $350 is being demanded by an obstetrician up front. It is not a guarantee of service, because the obstetrician says, "I will not be there on the weekend, and I will not be there if your baby has the inconvenience or temerity to be born after five o'clock," but simply an "administrative fee."

Does the minister not realize that this represents a fundamental abuse of the public and of women? What does he intend to do about the situation of doctors demanding fees up front before they will serve the patients of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable gentleman knows the legislation provides that should not take place in the manner in which he has indicated. He knows very well that the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario has suggested very strongly that at no time should charges such as those act as an impediment either to delivery or to access to insured services.

If the honourable gentleman will provide me with the names of the particular people and the physicians, he and I can together work out a way of attacking that type of practice. I do not find it at all acceptable that this is going on. Together we can probably find a way to address the concern this type of charge raises in my mind.

Mr. Rae: It is the responsibility of the ministry to get a message out. This is not a practice of one or two people; it is a practice taking place across the board, and the minister knows it. I am appalled to know that the minister has not taken any systematic steps to sit down with the college of physicians and surgeons to ensure that this kind of practice does not continue.

I want to refer the minister to another case. After the passage of Bill 94, a letter was presented to a patient which stated as follows:

"The province of Ontario has recently passed a bill limiting a surgeon to 70 per cent of the fee

schedule regardless of the nature of the surgeon's expertise or the time of the staff involved in organizing your surgery."

I will omit some of the letter for the sake of brevity. It goes on to say:

"In view of the high technology and expertise required and staff time, we would appreciate a voluntary contribution of $500." For the minister's information, this is for an eye operation. "You are under no obligation to comply with this request, but your support would be appreciated. We are encouraged by the patients who have been successfully operated on and who have helped us in this manner."

I did not make this up; it is right here in black and white.

Is the minister prepared to take steps to stop doctors from bilking patients for so-called voluntary contributions for so-called successful operations?

14:50

Hon. Mr. Elston: I think it has come as a surprise to no one that I would be concerned about letters such as that one being distributed. I think the honourable gentlemen would want to know that we have set up meetings to talk about this issue directly with the college.

In his

preamble to the question, the member indicated that we had done nothing to systematically analyse what is going on. We are doing that, and we are concerned that somebody should be asked to infer from the content of the letter that a successful operation is dependent upon a voluntary contribution.

From my standpoint and from the standpoint of people who are involved in the profession and who would like to ensure that people do not abuse the patients' rights, obviously I would like to follow up on that letter. I will be pleased to receive the names and other information on the people involved so I can pursue it and so it can be pursued in my meetings with the college and with the Ontario Medical Association, with whom we are also having meetings.

Mr. Rae: Since the minister is meeting so often with the college of physicians and surgeons and the OMA, does the minister not agree with me that it is reasonable on the part of the public to expect a process of negotiation over the next few days which will produce a categorical statement and a categorical position that physicians will not send bilking letters with respect to donations, that there will be no so-called standby fees or administrative fees by a physician which dictate the choice of physician and that patients will have access to normal medical services without having to pay out of their own pockets?

Does the minister not think that kind of statement should be forthcoming in a very short time so the patients of this province will know once and for all that they are not going to pay out of their own pockets for normal medical service in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Elston: From my standpoint, it is necessary to deal with some of the problems that have developed, largely from the historical side of the development of our health care system. We have a

schedule of benefits that talks about insured services, and it was really lifted holus-bolus from the fee

schedule guidelines. I think the only thing that has been defined adequately is the payment that is to be made for each of those insured services.

We have a large number of questions to deliberate upon between myself as Minister of Health, and the members or representatives of the profession, the college, to come to grips with what is now much more clearly a job we have to finish -- a job that was not finished before -- and that is to define what is an insured service and, as expressed by the representative of the college of physicians and surgeons on the weekend, what are the rules and regulations within which this system is operating.

I can tell the member that, from my standpoint, it is necessary that we set up those guidelines clearly. We are embarking upon that. We are trying to clarify where these things are going. I can tell the member the letter from which he quoted is one example, but there have been reports in the papers of others which caused us as much concern as the question of someone who was charging extra or asking for donations to hospitals. We will check through those.

TARIFFS ON SOFTWOOD LUMBER

Mr. Grossman: I have another question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, who has assured us he is going to try to bargain back what he implicitly gave away. It reminds me of offering Rod Lewis $2 million and then asking him to please give back $31,000. They have a lot of practice at this.

My question is this: prior to going along with the offer of a 10 per cent increase in stumpage fees, did the ministry do a study of the impact of such an offer; and if so, how many jobs did that study indicate might be at risk in northern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: As has been mentioned by the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio), this ministry was very involved from the very beginning, not only with the visit of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) to Washington but our Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology offices throughout the United States also did a lot of lobbying.

The minister and I had many meetings with the provincial ministers. We met with Miss Carney. We expressed our concern about it. Our ministry is continually doing studies of what the result would be of a 10 per cent surcharge on it. We estimate that between 500 and 1,000 jobs could be lost in the lumber business if this were accepted.

Mr. Grossman: Does the minister mean to tell this House that he, knowing there were 500 to 1,000 jobs at risk in northern Ontario, voluntarily said to the federal government that it should relay to the Americans that he was prepared to go along with an arrangement that cost a minimum of 500 to 1,000 jobs in Ontario? How does he justify that position where he, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, voluntarily gave up 500 to 1,000 jobs in small communities across northern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: That is simply ridiculous. The member does not know what he is talking about. I explained how the events went along and how we were pulled in with the other provinces and with the federal government. The federal Tories in Ottawa are the ones who brought this on, and he should not forget that either.

DAY CARE

Ms. Gigantes: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. In response to my question last week on day care, he admitted he had done nothing about the problems that are going to be created by the removal of indirect subsidies to municipally operated day care centres, and that within two months.

I would like to know what he is telling us is going to happen to the families in Thunder Bay and in other areas where the removal of that indirect subsidy is going to have the effect of doubling day care fees in some cases and certainly requiring families to withdraw their children from those day care services.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: My recollection of my answer to the previous question does not include the phrase that we had done nothing. I believe what I indicated to the member was that the process has been going on for three years and that last fall I had extended the period of time for an additional 12 months, from December 1985 to December 1986.

I also told the member we were in the process of working with a number of municipalities to solve their problems either completely or partially on an individual basis, because the situation is different in every area. In the member's own community of Ottawa, the spread between what should be charged and what is being charged is, I believe, between $2 or $3; in other communities, it is $8, $9, $10 or $15 in some cases.

The situations are very different. We have indicated that the federal government has made very clear to us, at a very costly financial penalty, that we cannot continue this process. But we are not in the process of simply going out and closing down centres; that is not our job. Our job is to work with them individually, but we must have co-operation and support from the municipalities as well.

Ms. Gigantes: What the minister is telling us is that he is looking to the municipalities of Ontario to provide day care policy when he does not have one. What he is asking the municipalities to do is to increase their level of subsidy. What we would like to know is when he is going to have a policy, when his famous child care review is going to be finished and what he is going to provide for day care centres in municipalities, which have struggled along with their municipal approval in some cases, when those fees go up and families drop out.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: We are not asking the municipalities to make day care policy for this province. This government will make day care policy for this province; it is in the process of doing that right now. What we are saying, however, is that the municipalities unilaterally may not legally make day care policy in the form of indirect subsidies. That is what we are telling them.

We are telling them at the same time that we are prepared to work with them, we are prepared to assist them to raise the ceiling under which individual families can qualify. That can happen in quite a number of these municipalities if that co-operation and that joint venture have to take place.

15:00

TARIFFS ON SOFTWOOD LUMBER

Mr. Pope: My question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. Can the minister specifically answer my leader's question? At the time the minister went along with the eight per cent to 10 per cent national consensus, did he have studies in place that showed the potential job impact?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: When the decision was made, as I mentioned that day, along with the 10 per cent offer, we did not have any job loss figure. We estimated that it could run between 500 and 1,000. We do not intend to let that happen. I would say now, along with the other provinces and the federal government that will run in with us, we will fight any charge.

Mr. Pope: This minister went along with an eight per cent to 10 per cent proposal without knowing its economic impact on the workers of this province and without knowing its impact in northern Ontario. Out of any sort of responsibility, decency and respect for those jobs, why did he not just say no?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: We said no both to the federal government and to the other provinces, but the consensus had been made that they were going along with the offer that had been extended by Miss Carney in Washington.

LANDFILL SITE

Mr. Hayes: My question is to the Minister of the Environment, if he will take his seat. On May 12 I asked the minister to close down the landfill site in the township of Maidstone. On October 10 I once again asked the minister in a form letter whether he would close that site. I have not had a response to that as of yet.

Last Friday my leader, our Environment critic and concerned citizens of my riding, along with myself, toured that site. We found that site has actually worsened. Nothing or very little has been done to correct the operation of that site.

Why will the minister not order the closing of the Maidstone landfill site, at least until a comprehensive investigation has been done to determine the real damage to the water supplies in the area?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I was aware, by the way, that the member was down there, along with his leader and the Environment critic of the New Democratic Party, and I have read some of the newspaper coverage of their visit to that site.

I often wonder, however, having read this and other material, about the stand of the NDP on this issue, because a former, very prominent member for Windsor-Sandwich, who was in this House for a number of years and had a --

Mr. Hayes: On a point of order: I am the member of the provincial parliament for Essex North. I am asking the question. I am not concerned about other people who are not representing that particular riding.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sure the minister will answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The only reason I mentioned that was that he was not the only one at the site. There was the member for Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier), who does not represent the riding, and the member for York South (Mr. Rae), who does not represent the riding; so I thought it would be useful to share with the member or to wonder aloud about the position. The former member for Windsor-Sandwich, who was in this House for some 10 years, a very prominent member, a member of Windsor city council, said the solution is simply to pile the garbage higher.

Mr. Rae: Is that your answer? You are piling superciliousness. That is superciliousness at its best.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mrs. Grier: During the course of this summer I have been in many ridings, as well as my own, looking at incredibly awful landfill sites, be they in Northumberland county, in Tiny township or in Maidstone township. The position of my party is very clear. I want to ask the minister why in all his discussions there is no concentration on recycling.

We have today a brief from the Canadian Union of Public Employees pointing out the economic advantages of recycling. Here in Metropolitan Toronto less than two per cent of our garbage is recycled,

whereas 12 per cent is recycled in the city of Kitchener. Why is the minister continuing to say he does not have a policy and that we do not have a policy, when we have seen no concrete evidence of any --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: In fairness to the member for Essex North (Mr. Hayes), my friend who has discussed this on a number of occasions, I did not want to say to him that we are without some concern, that his concerns are not valid. I simply mentioned that there were a number of people in the area who have an interest in that landfill site and who have different views.

As both members know, we have had a special team there from the Ministry of the Environment. As soon as I saw this as being a problem, when assuming this office as minister, we started to undertake those kinds of activities, which include prosecution of individuals, specific new staff being placed on the site, a consulting company doing tests and so on.

To the member for Lakeshore, who asked a supplementary question, we have a very extensive recycling program in Ontario, and I certainly encourage it. She will know that we have increased substantially the amount of money that has been allocated for recycling. I hate to scoop myself, because I have a speech I am going to make to the Recycling Council of Ontario on Friday, but I can tell the member, who is genuinely interested in these matters, that because of the kind of popularity our program has, we are significantly increasing the funding for recycling, even within this year. I know she will be pleased with that.

OPP RELOCATION

Mr. Callahan: I direct my question to the Solicitor General.

Mr. Gillies: Write him a letter.

Mr. Martel: Why does the member not lean over and ask him?

Mr. Speaker: He would like to ask a question.

Mr. Callahan: Can the Solicitor General tell what stage the plans are at for the Ontario Provincial Police headquarters in Brampton?

Hon. Mr. Keyes: I can assure the member for Brampton that we are proceeding with the relocation plans, as originally proposed by the previous administration. We still feel the location is appropriate. It has received some additional funding from Management Board for our team to carry on reviewing the work, and I hope we will see, as priorities present themselves, a date for moving.

Mr. Callahan: By way of supplementary, I will deliver this to the former Premier from Brampton and let him know what his Conservative friends think of him now. They think it is a funny question.

TARIFFS ON SOFTWOOD LUMBER

Mr. Harris: I have a question of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. Can the minister confirm that British Columbia, which is the province that has considerably lower stumpage and forestry fees than Ontario and the province that is the major source of concern in the United States, called the shots in this whole affair on behalf of Canadians?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: BC certainly has a lot of interest in this decision, but the federal government -- the member's Conservative cousins in Ottawa -- is the one that made that initial offer and followed through with it.

15:10

Mr. Harris: The minister does not understand. Why would he agree with British Columbia, which we know has lower stumpage fees and which we know is the main concern? Where was the minister speaking for Ontario? On page 13 of the report, on the decision that came out, it says, "The department received inadequate responses to its questions concerning the specificity of the provincial stumpage programs." They did not have the information from Ontario. The minister did not put Ontario's case for us. They say the absence of that affected the ruling. Why would the minister go along with BC and let it take the lead instead of putting Ontario's case forward?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: In this case, the lead was taken by the federal government, which I think now knows that the decision and the offer it made was not a good one.

PLANT SHUTDOWN

Mr. Foulds: I have a question for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. What steps has the government taken to ensure that the recommendations of Dr. Rosehart with regard to the reopening of the Great Lakes Forest Products waferboard plant in Thunder Bay are implemented before October 31, 1986, in order to save 150 jobs?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not in a position to give the --

Mr. Foulds: Unless the Premier has appointed somebody else recently, he is the one.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Is the member asking for an appointment?

Mr. Foulds: No.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I know that the honourable member takes these things very seriously. I am not in a position to give the specifics at the moment. There is some suggestion about capital upgrading of that facility. Discussions are still ongoing. We would very much like to see it open. I believe Dr. Rosehart brought a cooler head to prevail in those discussions than there had been there before; I am sure my friend will agree with me. We look at his suggestions as being what they are, constructive. I wish I could give an answer right now. I will keep in close touch with the member as we are closer to decisions.

Mr. Foulds: If the Premier is unable to give me specifics now, can he guarantee the people of Thunder Bay that he can give them a specific answer before October 31, 1986? Is the Premier aware that Dr. Rosehart said in recommendation 7, "Given the time constraints of equipment ordering and delivery, design and engineering, etc., it is felt that the agreements must all be in place by October 31, 1986." They do not have many days left.

"If no detailed agreement is reached by that time, Great Lakes Forest Products should be allowed in good faith to dispose of surplus equipment." What is the minister specifically going to do to make sure the agreements are in place by October 31 to ensure the reopening of that plant and those 150 jobs?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Dr. Rosehart called for some capital upgrading in that facility, given its uncompetitive nature in the past. He has been trying to sort out the various claims between the two sides. I am repeating myself, but the member will be aware that labour-management relationships were in pretty bad shape when Dr. Rosehart --

Mr. Foulds: Not that bad.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: In the member's opinion, they may have been good, but that is not my opinion of being good. When people are shouting at each other, not trusting each other and not working together, I call that bad. I do not think my friend would want to perpetuate a system --

Mr. Foulds: What is the government doing?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I will tell him what we have done. We brought in Dr. Rosehart. We have had some very constructive dialogue. There seems to be a meeting of the minds now with respect to some solutions. The government is prepared to play a constructive role and assist in keeping that plant open. We are determined, to the extent that we have responsibility and influence in the situation, to keep it open.

Mr. Foulds: Dr. Rosehart says in the report that the government does have a responsibility, and the Premier knows that.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I have a responsibility for everything, as does the member. Perhaps he wants to exercise his responsibility in this regard as well.

Mr. Foulds: That is what I am doing right now. It is too bad the Premier is not.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: If my honourable friend would stop shouting at me for just a moment, I am saying we are looking for answers quickly, not in the long term. We expect we will have a determination by October 31.

Mr. Speaker: New question, the member for Cochrane South.

Mr. Pope: In other words, the Premier is doing nothing on this issue as he is doing on so many issues in northern Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a question?

Mr. Pope: He is smiling. He is having a good day. There are 1,000 workers in northern Ontario are out of work and he is having a good day.

TARIFFS ON SOFTWOOD LUMBER

Mr. Pope: My question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, who the Premier just turned around and said was doing a great job, a great job costing thousands of jobs.

[Applause]

Mr. Pope: Let the record show that the Liberal cabinet is applauding the loss of 1,000 jobs in northern Ontario because of its decisions. They are a real bunch of clowns. It is a great joke when it comes to the north.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am very sorry to interfere, but will the member please ask a question?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Try to be civil. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) is nicer than the member.

Mr. Pope: He should tell 1,000 workers in northern Ontario that he is more interested in being civil than he is in fighting for their jobs.

The minister went along with a national consensus. He agreed to it; otherwise, Pat Carney would not have announced it. He never did any job studies. Can the minister tell me why this government never once fought for Ontario interests and Ontario workers? Why did it not even provide the basic information on the Ontario system to the International Trade Commission so it could make a ruling that was favourable to Ontario?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: Here the member is talking as a former minister from the north of a previous government that saw, if we take, for example, Sudbury, Inco go from 20,000 workers to about 5,000 to 6,000 people. What did they do in 42 years? We can name other examples in the north too.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is there any further response from the minister?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: It has been estimated that somewhere between 7,000 and 10,000 sheets of paper were submitted in this documentation to fight this case. Ontario owned a lot of the sheets that were put in there. A lot of work was done in those studies.

Mr. Pope: In 1983, the previous government of Ontario was in Washington fighting for Ontario jobs and Ontario interests. They were there with the support of other provinces.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Here I thought you were getting along fine. If you wish to waste the time, just waste the time. I will wait.

Mr. Pope: In 1983, we were in Washington explaining the differences in policies in British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec. We were maintaining Ontario's unique interests in this issue.

In the light of this clear comment in the ruling itself that the minister failed to give adequate responses to the question concerning the specificity of the provincial stumpage programs, in the light of the fact that he was never in Washington and in the light of the fact that the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) would not even know what the Washington Monument looked like, why is no one standing up and fighting for Ontario jobs? Why did the government fail?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: It is my understanding that when the previous government went to Washington in 1983, the member opposite did not really contribute very much to the discussions.

LEAD LEVELS

Mr. Reville: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. That lead-contaminated soil poses a grave threat to our children in south Riverdale is well known to this House. Last week the Royal Society of Canada commission on lead in the environment recommended soil replacement where lead soil levels exceed 500 parts per million and where blood lead levels in children exceed three micrograms per decilitre more than the average.

Last year the ministry tested 400 properties in south Riverdale. Will the minister advise the House how many of those 400 properties showed lead levels of more than 500 parts per million and when his ministry will replace that soil?

15:20

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The question the member raises, along with the information provided in the Royal Society of Canada's report he referred to, is very helpful to the Ministry of the Environment and right across the country in terms of assessing new thresholds the society would recommend for the removal of soil.

As a result of that and as a result of studies being done at present by the medical officer of health in Toronto, trying to relate the level of lead in the soil to the people in the surrounding area and then comparing that with other parts of the province, that comparison is going to be very useful.

The information provided by the royal society report is being considered by the Ministry of the Environment. It may alter what we have conceived to be the level at which soil should be removed. I can tell the member we have this under very active consideration now.

Mr. McClellan: That was a masterpiece of disinformation. The question was, is the minister prepared to release the data on the number of properties where the lead levels are above 500 parts per million and remove the soil? My supplementary has to do with the neighbourhood surrounding the Toronto Refiners and Smelters lead plant and the Niagara Street neighbourhood. The royal society found properties with lead levels as high as 2,300 parts per billion.

I repeat the question -- and please answer it: is the minister going to release the data showing the number of properties in both of those neighbourhoods above 500 parts per million? Second, and most important, is the minister going to set up an implementation group in the ministry to remove the soil?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I do not know how the member defines it as disinformation. I wanted to deal with as much as possible of the question as had been asked by the member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville).

To the specific question of the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan), I can tell him that will be provided; it will be provided even before the assessment that is being done by the medical officer of health. The original thought was that the assessment report by the medical officer of health and the ministry report should be one report.

What I have determined from the member for Riverdale's constituents and others is that, independent of that, this information should be forthcoming and most certainly it will be.

On the second part, about implementation, as a result of the information the member for Riverdale brought to my attention and the information to which the other member makes reference, we will be looking at the implementation of that. One has to determine what the specific level should be. I can tell the member all of that information will be very relevant to the final decision that is made.

BEER STORES

Mr. Callahan: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Recently there were press reports indicating that Brewers' Retail had opened a local store in one of the apartment buildings in Scarborough. There were also reports in the press that they are looking at the question of opening stores at local subway stops. My question is, are they authorized to do that or do they require authorization, and have they obtained it?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Brewers' Warehousing is a private venture company made up of the brewers of Ontario. They establish their own commercial leases and locations on their own. They do not require permission from the Liquor Control Board of Ontario or the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario.

Mr. Callahan: In all the material I received over the period of time when I was being lobbied with reference to this question, they raised many of the questions that the opposition did in terms of the availability and all the horrendous things that were going to result from it. Were there ever any indications to the minister, or has the minister been advised, of these proposals by Brewers' Retail that it intends to set up stores at subway stations?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: All members will know, because everybody was sent a copy of a brief prepared by Brewers' Warehousing, that they recommended various things they could do, and one of the things they suggested was that they could set up beer stores in subway stations on a long-term basis of extended hours. That is all I can tell the member about it.

USE OF LOTTERY FUNDS

Mr. Rowe: My question is to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. Last Thursday, in response to a question I asked regarding Bill 38 on the use of lottery profits, the minister stated there was no message of fear; there was no fear whatsoever. Is he aware of an organization called the Alliance to Protect Culture, Recreation, Sports and Fitness in Ontario and what this group represents?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: The only fear I know of comes from the fact that in 1983 the previous government froze the capital programs and did not provide any funding for the various programs; thus the fear that exists in this province.

Interjections.

Mr. Rowe: If this side of the House needs a mathematics test, we will ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil), not this minister. In case the minister does not know, and obviously he does not, the Alliance to Protect Culture, Recreation, Sports and Fitness in Ontario represents 85 organizations from across the province, which were not consulted prior to the introduction of Bill 38. They have written us letters about the bill. Here they are here. We have them.

Mr. Speaker: And your question is?

Mr. Rowe: They are meeting in Toronto this evening to discuss their fears. In the light of the fact that the fear does exist, and we have established this, is the minister willing to agree to pull Bill 38 and consult with these concerned organizations, many of which are made up of volunteer help?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I have heard from many organizations throughout the province. I think it is great that they write and express the need for assistance for their various programs, but people also know they have been getting more assistance from this government than they have ever had in the history of this province. They know, and I will meet with them.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Once again, I am waiting patiently. Order.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We will just wait, if you want to waste the time.

SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. He will likely be aware that his ministry has effectively imposed a development freeze on the east end of Windsor, including Tecumseh, St. Clair Beach and Sandwich South, because it has said it will appeal any proposals for development to the Ontario Municipal Board because of the lack of sewage capacity in the east-end sewage treatment plant. While I agree with that decision, because there is not adequate capacity, why has the Ministry of the Environment not implemented a program to adequately assist municipalities so they can afford additions to their sewage treatment plants? The cost of this one will be $17 million.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member will be aware that the Ministry of the Environment -- and it has not simply been this way since I have been the minister; other ministers will be aware of this as well -- some time ago set up a program whereby a substantial amount of money was made available to municipalities. If the member looks at the years they were building their infrastructure, for instance, he will see some years of very high expenditures in terms of the amount of money provided. We are now getting into a period of municipal infrastructure renewal, which I think is more what we are looking for, although this is peripheral to that.

My ministry has been working on this. I have had communications with those in the area the member represents, and in addition I recently raised it under the title of infrastructure renewal at the annual meeting of the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers. Particularly in the kinds of pockets the member talks about, where there is a pollution problem, it is essential that the program of eliminating water pollution should be accelerated. It can best be accelerated if we are able to get some federal assistance or participation in this. I am mildly optimistic that we may see this as a result of the deliberations that took place at the environment ministers' conference.

15:30

Mr. D. S. Cooke: If the federal government is not prepared to participate in this program, which is a likely scenario, will the minister be prepared to start his own program? In this specific case, would he be willing to look at the fact that if Tecumseh, St. Clair Beach and Sandwich South, as three independent municipalities, applied to this government for funding for their own sewage treatment plant, the rate of grant would be much higher than 15 per cent? Since they are operating together to save the taxpayers' money, would it not be appropriate to fund them at a rate higher than 15 per cent?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: In response to the member's suggestion, along with those that have been made -- I learned this from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman), who always used to do this when he was on this side of the House; he used to mention the members on our side of the House -- by the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye) and others in that area who have drawn this to my attention, we are actually in the process of developing such a program. The member has a good, serious question. The member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. Newman) has drawn this to my attention on numerous occasions.

As a result of the representations from all parties in this House, we are moving forward on that to a point where even the member opposite will not be critical of what we are doing in the ministry.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr. Stevenson: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. What representation has the minister made to the federal government to give it some guidance on how to spend the portion of the $1 billion that it expects to give to Ontario farmers for assistance in the light of the United States farm bill?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: This issue was first raised at the agriculture ministers' conference held in British Columbia in the last week of August. At that time, the Premier of Saskatchewan made a very strong pitch for $1 billion to be applied to the western grain producers.

This minister indicated to Mr. Wise that if any deficiency payments were to be made by the federal government, they should be applied on an equitable basis right across this country. We also have grain producers, corn producers, soybean growers and other growers of oil seed in Ontario who are in just as much difficulty, because of the price and now the weather, as they are in western Canada. Representing Ontario, I asked for in excess of $1 billion to be applied right across this country.

Then about two weeks ago, the deputy ministers met. They were saddled with the responsibility of making some determination on how the money should best be applied across the country, whether it should be by way of guaranteed loans or by way of a cash payout. They are currently working on that, but I do have the assurance from Mr. Wise that the $1 billion is a national program and that we will get our share.

Mr. Stevenson: Can we expect a matching of dollar for dollar from this government when the allocation does come to Ontario producers?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: It is premature to say what the provincial government will be doing at this time. We have no idea what the ultimate damage will be to those crop producers because of the weather and low prices caused by the Food Security Act in the United States.

I have established a committee that is monitoring the situation; it has been for some time and will continue to do so. It will be suggesting options that we may well have to apply when we find out how extensive the damage is. We will be working very closely with our federal counterparts, and we will see what can and has to be done for the farmers of this province.

INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Swart: I believe the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations is somewhere within the precincts. I wonder whether he would take his seat. I would like to pose a question to him on insurance again.

Given that it has been 20 months since the insurance companies started to implement their tremendous rate increases and their unjust policies with respect to auto insurance and liability insurance, given that the minister has not yet lifted a finger to impede them in that and given that it is about six months since Slater reported, I wonder whether the minister can tell us when he will be introducing new legislation or a policy to stop these blatant abuses of the public by the insurance companies and what may be the main features of that legislation or policy.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member will know that Dr. Slater released his report on May 9. I then welcomed response to his report, because it was a report to government and not a report of government. I invited the general population, the insurance industry and the legal profession to address his report and gave them until the end of August to do so. We received close to 200 responses. The superintendent of insurance is now analysing those and making a recommendation, which I will be bringing forward as soon as I can.

Mr. Swart: I am appalled by the indifference in that answer to the timing and to the fact that the minister has not intervened at all during this long period. Does he mean he cannot even tell us at this late date whether he is going to stop such injustices as rates based on age, sex and marital status, all drivers in one household being penalized for one driver's record and drivers being forced to go to facility insurance for frivolous reasons? Apart from the fact that the minister could and should have acted on these a year ago, is he telling us he has not even made up his mind on any of these important issues yet?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I should tell the honourable member that certain things have been done. We have looked at the whole area of age, sex and marital status. We have asked the industry to compile data eliminating those criteria. We have set up, and helped the school boards set up, reciprocals, as I am sure the member is aware. We have worked on a plan whereby we can provide liability insurance to manufacturers doing business in the United States. We are well on our way to implementing a Canadian insurance exchange.

We have done a whole host of things, but I should say we on this side of the House do not go off half-cocked until we have the facts; and when we have the facts, we will act.

Mr. Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Under standing order 29(a), I question why you recognized the member for Brampton (Mr. Callahan) instead of the member for York East (Ms. Hart) to ask why the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) kept secret the outbreak of salmonella poisoning in Toronto East General and Orthopaedic Hospital in her riding today.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that is a point of order. The Speaker has a right to recognize on a rotational basis any member in this chamber during question period. That is the reason I did it. It is not debatable.

Mr. Harris: I am not challenging your ruling. There seemed to be some concern about standing order 29(a).

Mr. Speaker: Order, with respect.

15:40

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TRACO INVESTMENTS LIMITED ACT

Mr. McFadden moved first reading of Pr38,

An Act to revive Traco Investments Limited.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: I ask all members to refrain from private conversations. I may ask them the name of that bill.

PENSION BENEFITS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill 137,

An act to amend the Pension Benefits Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Mackenzie: This bill provides that where private pension plans provide for bridging supplements, members of the pension plans, rather than employers, will benefit from changes in the Canada pension plan providing benefits to persons before they reach the age of 65. In other words, if you have a private plan, it cannot be reduced on the basis of the early retirement through the Canada pension plan.

This legislation, I might point out, is similar to that which Quebec passed a couple of years ago to protect workers from the same kind of move in that province.

ONTARIO LOTTERY PROFITS AWARDS COUNCIL ACT

Mr. Grande moved first reading of Bill 138,

An Act to establish the Ontario Lottery Profits Awards Council.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Grande: The bill creates the Ontario Lottery Profits Awards Council to deal with the profits of provincial lotteries and to promote cultural, multicultural and recreational activities.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Before the orders of the day, I would like to table the answers to questions 250, 290, 335 and 377 standing in the Orders and Notices [see Hansard for Monday, October 27].

MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDINARY BUSINESS

Mr. Harris moved that, pursuant to standing order 37(a), the business of the House be set aside so that the House might debate a matter of urgent public importance, that being the imposition by the United States government of a 15 per cent countervailing tariff on softwood lumber products, the Ontario government's abysmal failure to represent Ontario's interests in this matter and the effect this decision will have on the softwood lumber industry of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: The notice of motion was received at 5:22 p.m. on October 16, 1986. It was received in time and it complies with standing order 37. I will listen to the honourable member for up to five minutes, as well as to representatives from the other parties for up to five minutes.

Mr. Harris: To all members of the House who were in this Legislature on Thursday and heard the minister proudly announce the wonderful achievement that it was only a 15 per cent countervail; to all those who have seen events that have occurred over the weekend, and to those who are in the Legislature today, it is pretty obvious why this debate must proceed.

It is unfortunate that the government, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil), the Minister of Natural Resources, (Mr. Kerrio), the Premier (Mr. Peterson), the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) and anybody over there did not comprehend and did not understand what was happening. This matter has been raised by the member for Kenora (Mr. Bernier), the critic for our party, on several occasions by way of press release and statement in this House. He pointed out to the government what was happening and that the government should be intervening on Ontario's behalf.

What appears to have happened is that the two ministers involved -- the minister for ruining trade and the minister for ruining our resource industry -- called together a meeting today, we understand, of the forest industry in Ontario so that they could understand the issue better and could face this Legislature today in question period, and so that they could participate in this debate in some meaningful way. It is too bad they did not take that time a year and a half ago, a year ago, six months ago or five months ago to understand the issue.

Why did the minister have to call them all down here today to help, so he could participate in this debate with some form of intelligence? Unfortunately, it was too little, too late because, from the answers we heard at question period today, he still has a long way to go to understand this issue.

We saw evidence in the decision that was handed down that the parts that were missing were on information they wanted to see on the provincial crown dues on stumpage, on forest management agreements and how much companies were actually paying for Ontario timber. That information is key and germane to Ontario's position. It is the information that in 1983 overrode what was happening in British Columbia and what was happening in Quebec. It was Ontario's position that in 1983 caused the people in the US to say: "Yes, you are right. There is no subsidy."

The minister failed to put forward that position. What appears to have happened is that BC, as we know, has the federal minister's ear, but Ontario could have the minister's ear if it would speak up. He talks about Pat Carney, the federal minister, not putting forward our case. How the hell could she, if she did not have the information? What information did he give her to put forward the case? We have already said we think it is a stupid way to proceed anyway because, as we know, Ontario is different from BC.

We know, and the US accepted in 1983, that the stumpage charges and the crown dues here in Ontario are considerably higher than they are in British Columbia; so if BC has a problem, it can solve that problem by increasing its own stumpage dues. Those two jackasses do not have to jump on the bandwagon --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Harris: I withdraw the word "jackasses."

We have seen no evidence of the Ontario government putting forward Ontario's position. We had a lame-duck excuse today that a year ago the Premier brought it up. Was he so ashamed of the way he brought it up that he did not tell the media and he did not come back and tell anybody? Did he have some secret meeting a year ago that nobody knew anything about? Where was the Minister of Natural Resources, where was the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology, where was the Premier and where was the minister of anything, putting forward Ontario's position? It is a disgrace.

Obviously, we should have had an emergency debate a year ago or six months ago to educate those clowns about what is going on. We will have it today and we will have the information out there for the Ontario public, but more particularly, so that the ministers can learn what is going on and perhaps represent us a little better.

15:50

Mr. Laughren: I support the motion as put forward. I believe this emergency debate is absolutely necessary if for no other reason than to help this government come to a decision and work out a response to the announcement of the 15 per cent countervailing duty on softwood lumber.

It seems as though the government has been asleep at the switch. I believe very strongly that it is no coincidence that this government talks not at all about this issue, despite the fact that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology had already agreed to having a 10 per cent increase in stumpage fees when the federal government went to Washington, cap in hand, on bended knee, as it were. I find it truly amazing that that was never discussed in this chamber. I do not recall either the minister or the Minister of Natural Resources standing in their places and telling us the decision or concession they had made to increase the stumpage fees.

It is important that this government have an adequate response to what I would consider an emergency, particularly in northern Ontario, but this will not just affect northern Ontario. There is also no guarantee that this countervailing duty will end with softwood lumber products. It comes from the same trees as very often make the pulp and paper and for which there are stumpage fees. There is no question that we are in some difficulty in northern Ontario. The north is already reeling from a series of layoffs and shutdowns, and we did not need this latest news.

It is no coincidence that this announcement coincides with the ongoing talks on bilateral free trade negotiations. There is absolutely no evidence that this government opposes those negotiations. On the contrary, this government seems to be very comfortable with what the federal Tories are doing with Washington. It seems to be extremely comfortable.

That is why I find it passing strange to hear my colleagues in the Conservative party in Ontario ranting and raving at the Ontario Liberals when it is their masters in Ottawa who have initiated these free trade talks and the 10 per cent increase in stumpage fees. It is a bit hypocritical for the Tories to be doing that.

What is important for us in this chamber is to try to extract from the government what it intends its response should be. We need this debate so that people in Ontario will learn just what the government's position is. We need to answer a number of questions.

We need to know whether the provincial Conservatives, the official opposition in this chamber, continue to support Prime Minister Mulroney's free trade negotiations, given the fact that they cannot separate this countervailing duty action from the free trade negotiations. Let us not kid the troops that one can make a distinction.

Do we know whether the Ontario Liberals are having second thoughts on the whole question of free trade negotiations? Why did the Ontario Liberals agree? Why did the minister agree to the 10 per cent increase in stumpage fees? He had absolutely no economic data to support the 10 per cent increase in stumpage fees. Why did we hear nothing from the government until the 15 per cent duty had been imposed by the United States?

There was no question that a decision was forthcoming. We knew that, and yet all we got was a weak-kneed response from the government and a wringing of hands. There seems to have been no work done prior to the announcement being made. If any work was done, it was so inefficient and inadequate as to have no effect at all. I suspect that acquiescing in that 10 per cent increase in stumpage fees was the only signal that was needed by Washington. Then they could say to themselves: "Look, we have them on the run now. They admit this is a subsidy. All we are debating now is the level at which we will impose the countervailing duty." That is exactly what happened.

Finally, it is important that we find out today whether this government is prepared to tell the American government that we will no longer engage in this shameless sellout of Ontario's resources and that the Americans can pull that Trojan horse across the border without our help.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: We have no objection to the debate proceeding. It probably would not make much difference if we had. Certainly, this is a matter of urgent public importance. It came to the attention of the Legislature late last week and this is the first opportunity we have had to have a thorough airing of the matter.

Frankly, I cannot understand why there have been so many pejorative adjectives used by the opposition parties when they had every opportunity to listen to the informed explanations put forward by my colleagues the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology and the Minister of Natural Resources.

Obviously, they have the matter well in hand and have been dealing with their provincial counterparts and the federal minister in a responsible and effective way. It is a difficult matter for a provincial minister to deal on any kind of a basis with the federal department and the US federal government. We have protected and will continue to protect the jobs in our jurisdiction, as well as the resource capability of northern Ontario.

There is no reason at all why this should not be further aired. The one thing that does concern me in setting aside the regular business, very important business indeed dealing with the revenue base of Ontario, is that, as soon as it is decided that a matter of urgent public importance is to be discussed, almost all the honourable members leave the place. As a matter of fact, it is clearly understood the debate is going forward, but as I look at the ranks of the Progressive Conservative Party, I see a sea of empty blue chairs with a few red polished apples sitting in place.

I do not want to indicate in any way that they are anything less than totally sincere in this matter, but it seems to me, if the matter is as bad as they have suggested, it might be worth while if their members were here to support the one or two members of the north who will be speaking.

I think the honourable former minister, who feels his personal abilities have saved the day in the past, is still refighting some old campaigns. I do not think it sits well on him to undertake such a role for himself. Once again, not for a moment would I denigrate the fact that as the former minister, as a northerner himself and as a lawyer in one of the important northern towns, his knowledge is useful to the House in this regard, and we would be very glad to hear of it as the debate proceeds.

Speaking as the House leader for the government party, not only do we have no objection to the debate proceeding but also we think it is a useful exercise of the rules of the House.

Mr. Speaker: We have a motion before the House. I have listened carefully to the interesting comments, which are most worth while, and I draw the conclusion it is the feeling from the members that this debate proceed. However, I have to put the question, shall the debate proceed?

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: I remind all members who wish to speak that they have up to 10 minutes to speak.

16:00

TARIFFS ON SOFTWOOD LUMBER

Mr. Pope: The Deputy Premier (Mr. Nixon), having questioned the sincerity of the members of this House for not being present, promptly picked up and left the chamber, leaving two cabinet members in the chamber who are concerned enough about this issue.

Also, in condemning others for using adjectives today, he managed in his own way to question the sincerity of anyone who might want to disagree with the process and with the decisions his government made on this matter recently. Second, he indicated that anyone who is a former cabinet minister is colouring the past and attempting to fight old battles on personal glories.

The member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren), part of the alliance, agrees with that. He is satisfied with what his alliance colleagues have done for northern Ontario on this matter; I can see that. His exercise in self-justification and congratulations was heartening to the people of Chapleau and Foleyet, who depend on the lumber industry for their jobs.

I never claimed I had personally changed the decision of the International Trade Commission in 1983. I indicated quite clearly in this Legislature to the ministers who wanted to listen that I was part of a team that involved the private sector, the industry, the unions and other provincial governments.

I also made it quite clear that our position on this matter in 1983 was completely different from the strategy the present government has adopted. In 1983 we felt that because it was provincial policies that were under attack, not federal policies, and because it was a provincial natural resource base that was under attack, which is our jurisdiction under the Constitution, Ontario had a role to play, we had a point of view to express on our own behalf. That vision was shared by a number of provincial governments across this country.

That is why Tom Waterland from British Columbia was in Washington on his own behalf, on behalf of the government of British Columbia. That is why Bernard Landry, the external trade minister from Quebec, was in Washington on his own behalf on a number of occasions, on behalf of his own government.

It was not done unilaterally by the Ontario Minister of Natural Resources of the day on his own initiative. It was done in consultation with the forest products industry and with the unions. It was done at the request of those people who had so much to lose from the countervailing duty application. It was done in concert with the International Trade ministry in Washington, and it was done in consultation with Allan Gotlieb, the ambassador to Washington.

Mr. Fontaine: The feds were not there.

Mr. Pope: The feds were there. The member for Cochrane North (Mr. Fontaine) was not in Washington at the time. He was not involved in the discussions at the time.

It is clear that at all turns we had the co-operation and support of the international trade ministry, which understood our position: we would not be part of a national consensus; we would not be part of a retreat on Ontario's sovereign right to set its own stumpage fees and collect crown dues under the provincial jurisdiction given to it under the Constitution.

We also worked with Herb Fierst. We worked with him at the request of the member opposite and at the request of the industry in the province and at his request. We always underlined, including in front of Mr. Baldrige, the Secretary of Commerce, our right as provinces under our Constitution to deal with resources.

We underlined our right alone to speak as one province, to put forward our points of view and our respective interests as provinces vis-à-vis the stumpage rates and other provincial government policies that might have an impact on the hearings. We always put forward our point of view on the potential impact of this countervailing duty on our workers, on the industries and on the one-industry communities across northern Ontario and in eastern Ontario.

That was the message this government should have brought; there is no doubt. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil) can colour it in this House any way he wants. We have enough clear information to show that he acceded to the eight to 10 per cent solution announced by Pat Carney. He was involved in it before it was announced in Washington or in the House of Commons. We have information on that. Afterwards, he acceded to it and defended it. He was part of it.

If he was not part of it then, why would he attack it only today? Why would he not attack it on the very day Pat Carney announced it? If he were not part of it when she stood up in Parliament and announced it, why would he not pull out of this national consensus?

The member for Cochrane North, who is now interrupting, has said up north that this is not an issue we can be partisan about. In other words, is he saying that on any issue in which this government messes up the future of so many working people in northern Ontario, the opposition has no right to comment on that strategy or to criticize the government?

It has been clear since 1962 that the number one complaint in the United States stems from the crown dues practices of British Columbia. From 1962 onwards, there have been investigations in Congress and by the International Trade Commission, principally at the complaint of the Pacific northwest, with respect to the British Columbia system.

In 1973, we had a similar investigation by a presidential panel. The conclusion of that panel was to ask directly for a commitment by Ontario lumber producers to supply the American market. In the late 1970s, there were further investigations by the International Trade Commission, again with respect to British Columbia. We have not yet received answers from this government on why it was part of a national consensus when the major problem was British Columbia.

The second point that is clear is that this is not just a quasi-judicial process, as the minister will stand up and claim. Any reading of the background of this issue will show that the 1982-83 application was instituted by Senator Packwood through the House ways and means committee. If the member will go back and read history, he will see that the entire issue in the 1980s was initiated on a political level by Senator Packwood to react to complaints in his home state with respect to the British Columbia situation. If the minister does not believe that, I have documents from 1982-83 to substantiate it.

The minister knows very well that Senator Packwood has been pressing all along. He knows very well that one of the complaints of the Ontario Lumber Manufacturers Association and of Herb Fierst in Washington has been the political interference in the process, the letters from congressmen trying to put pressure on Malcolm Baldrige, the Secretary of Commerce, and a threat by Congress to take action if the International Trade Commission will not. He should not sit back and tell me this is a quasi-judicial process and therefore politicians had no role in it.

The industry, the federal governments, the American governments and Malcolm Baldrige himself did not believe that in 1983; that is why they asked us to go and see Malcolm Baldrige to present the provincial point of view in Washington. That is why Bernard Landry, Tom Waterland and I went.

It is not just a quasi-judicial issue. There are so many other elements, and that is why it was so important for the minister as our representative, as a representative of the people who work in the bush and in the sawmills of Ontario, to be in Washington, to make our case directly, as we did, to Senator Cohen of Maine and Senator Packwood, who have so many legitimate concerns about their own industries and employment in their states.

That is why it was so important for this province to have a unique point of view, a position and representation in front of Malcolm Baldrige and in front of the International Trade Commission staff. That is why it was so important for this government to stand up for the people of this province.

My only complaint about the minister's conduct in this matter is first, his change in his position after the fact is too late. Second, he has not made information available to us. He still has not. My office called his offices on Friday afternoon and asked specifically for documentation and information surrounding the eight to 10 per cent solution offered, and we were told he would not produce it. We were not told it did not exist; we were told he would not produce it. As members of the Legislature, with thousands of jobs at stake --

Interjection.

Mr. Pope: Yes. The minister owes more to the people of this province than what he has done in the past six months.

16:10

The Deputy Speaker: Before the next member commences, may I point out that the apples on the members' desks are to be taken outside the chamber for devouring.

Mr. Laughren: I appreciated the comments of the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope). I appreciate that he knows a considerable amount about the issue and was involved in this when he was Minister of Natural Resources. However, I must say it would have been a spectacle if he had still been the Minister of Natural Resources while his federal Tory counterparts in Ottawa were negotiating the 10 per cent increase in stumpage fees, which signalled to the Americans that there was a subsidy on our softwood lumber.

It would have been a spectacle to have witnessed the member for Cochrane South standing up to his colleagues in Ottawa any more than the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology or the Minister of Natural Resources did during these negotiations. That would have been something to behold. I believe that loyalty to the Tory party would have overcome the member and he would not have stood up to Pat Carney in Ottawa or to anybody in Washington either; after all, the member for Cochrane South is a young Republican; that should be kept in mind.

I feel very strongly that the debate is necessary this afternoon to flush out just where the Ontario government stands on this issue. At this point, we do not know. Both ministers involved and the Premier (Mr. Peterson) are wringing their hands about how awful it is to have this 15 per cent countervailing duty imposed and how they will fight it -- after the fact, of course. That they did not fight it ahead of time speaks volumes about how they have acquiesced in the face of the federal government's free trade initiative.

Right from the beginning of the free trade talks, the Tories in Ottawa, and to a certain extent the Liberals in Ontario, have had an inherent belief that if only we let the marketplace look after it in the form of free trade, our economic system will become lean and mean and we will be able to compete in a better way with other countries in the world.

I could see that argument being made with some validity if we were talking about trade among equals, but how in the world does one ever come to the conclusion that an economy 10 times the size of Canada's will compete with us on an equal basis, given that it has the enormous advantages of huge production runs, a huge domestic market and leverage on power and investment decisions?

One has to be dreaming in Technicolor to think we can negotiate a free trade agreement with the Americans and not get hurt. We are not dealing with equals. That is why I have thought from the beginning that both the federal Conservatives and the Ontario Liberals were foolhardy in their belief that the invisible hand of the marketplace would look after any problems that might arise.

The Ontario Liberals seem to think that while there would be some dislocation as a result of free trade, whether it were the softwood lumber issue, pulp and paper or shakes and shingles on the west coast, we could tough it out and handle it. There would be dislocations but we could handle them. They should say that to the 5,000 or 6,000 lumber workers in northern Ontario who will be affected by this decision if it stands. That is just the lumber workers directly employed and does not deal with the spinoff jobs that will be lost as a result of this.

These numbers are not mine; they come from the Ontario Lumber Manufacturers Association, which must know the impact this will have on the industry.

We are talking about a part of Ontario that is still reeling from layoffs and shutdowns and that has an unemployment rate approximately double that of the rest of the province. If we have two Ontarios out there now, there will be two Ontarios in spades if this decision takes place.

The acquiescence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology with the 10 per cent decision is the most shocking thing that has come out of this debate so far. I appreciated his candour this afternoon, but it was a remarkable confession that he acquiesced in the 10 per cent solution on the stumpage fees. We happen to believe, and we said so in this party's report on forestry a couple of years ago, that stumpage fees are too low, not just in Ontario but elsewhere in this country.

Did the previous Tory government ever do anything about those stumpage fees so that new moneys would come to the people of Ontario and not to the people of the United States? No. They were quite happy with their friends in the industry to leave the stumpage fees at the level they were at.

I am worried about what is going to happen in northern Ontario now, because I do not know what is next. I cannot see any guarantees that pulp and paper will not be next. If stumpage fees are too low for lumber, are they too low for pulp and paper as well? There is a striking similarity between the trees used for softwood lumber and the trees used for pulp and paper. What is next in terms of the social services we offer, medicare in Ontario and unemployment insurance and pension plans federally? Who is to say? I think it is outrageous.

While I may think stumpage fees are low, at least they are set by this jurisdiction as a sovereign province within this country. I find it extremely offensive for someone else to tell us we have to raise our stumpage fees. I may do it myself, but I sure am offended when I find the United States telling us what to do.

We know this decision is serious. We know 70 per cent of softwood lumber is exported to the United States. We are talking about a $600-million business every year; so this is a major decision. It is going to be a real test of this government's mettle, particularly about how it will handle problems in northern Ontario.

So far, the government has been able to get away with some smoke and mirrors. It has shifted a few civil servants to northern Ontario, but as yet this government has done nothing fundamentally different for the north than was done by the previous government, absolutely nothing. Until this government understands that the economy of northern Ontario is structurally unsound, is anything going to change?

Until this government understands there is an opportunity to replace a lot of the imports that come into northern Ontario now -- I am thinking of resources machinery, both mining and lumbering; we import so much of it. There is an opportunity there, but this government shows no willingness to tackle that very thorny problem of replacing imports that we buy from around the world where we have a very substantial domestic market.

The ministers involved have a great deal to answer for. If this decision stands, they are probably going to have more to answer for when those one-industry communities dependent on the lumber industry come knocking on the door. I heard the Premier saying in those communities up north: "We do not have the answers. You are going to have to come up with your own answers. The solution is in this community, not down at Queen's Park."

That sounds great, and the Premier got some very good press as a result of those statements. I suppose the Premier can write off northern Ontario that way if he likes. The southern press is not at all sympathetic to the problems of the small communities in northern Ontario. The government has to understand that two Ontarios are developing out there; one of them is down here and the other one is up north where we have such massive unemployment and such enormous social dissipation as a result of that unemployment.

This party is opposed to the free trade talks. We believe they are not in Canada's interest and not in Ontario's interest, but we have laid out some alternatives. We have just not opposed the free trade talks. Six recommendations flowed from the select committee on economic affairs. My colleague the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) was on that committee.

These were the six recommendations:

1. Drop the free trade objective even under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade definition;

2. Drop the comprehensive nature of the talks;

3. Use the negotiating teams already put together to help resolve the current trade disputes;

4. Put in place an ongoing bilateral mechanism for resolving current and future trade disputes;

5. Stop acting on the philosophy that everything is on the table;

6. Start with nothing on the table, then bring forward those critical disputes that need such resolutions.

It seems to me that is a much more sensible approach to the free trade negotiations. What we are seeing here today, and the result of this announcement of the 15 per cent countervailing duty, could be just the tip of the iceberg. There is no guarantee we will not see a lot more of this. If this government thinks it is reeling from this decision, I shudder to think what is going to happen in the future. It appears that this government has been caught short and has not been prepared for this kind of decision.

16:20

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I rise to participate in this emergency debate. We agreed unanimously that the time should be set aside, that there was no question about it being an urgent concern, not only to all members of the Legislature but also to all the people in Ontario.

A countervail decision by the US Department of Commerce threatens one of the most significant assets of this province. The forest industries represent a net value of more than $2 billion to the economy of Ontario annually. Their vitality is important to the economic wellbeing of the province as a whole and northern Ontario in particular.

The US decision causes grave concern to us as a government and to the forest industries, which are in partnership with us in our opposition to the tariff. Our position is firm. The ruling by the American government is unacceptable. Our position has not changed. It is the US Department of Commerce that has changed its mind in a sense.

In 1983 the Department of Commerce ruled that the Canadian stumpage systems were generally available and could not, in effect, be a subsidy to the forest industries. Since then, the systems have not changed, and stumpage fees in Ontario and other provinces have increased considerably, by as much as 25 per cent in Ontario alone. I find it very difficult to understand the logic behind the about-face of the US government in making this decision on the stumpage systems relating to countervail.

For instance, in the preliminary determination, the benchmark price for all Ontario and Quebec is based on the private sale of trees in New Brunswick. In New Brunswick, the situation is markedly different in that wood is closer to roads, markets and mills and the species of trees are very different. In many cases, New Brunswick's wood is in farmers' woodlots, which makes it even more ludicrous that it would be used as a benchmark for comparison. How can any reasonable person compare these trees to the ones north of Hearst or Cochrane, for example? Equally, the ruling for the vast area of British Columbia and Alberta forests is based on a small volume of auctioned timber in BC.

The Americans themselves have said this is one of the most complex countervailing duty cases ever undertaken in the US. We also think it is one of the most confusing and the most unfair. Economists have not yet determined exactly what the imposition of a countervailing duty will mean to the industry in Ontario and across the country. It will certainly disrupt the industry's share of the US market in the long term.

We are determined to make the strongest possible arguments against a tariff to ensure the protection of Ontario industry and Ontario jobs. I am very pleased also to tell you that we are not taking the defeatist attitude that exists on the other side. We have not given up and we are not talking about any jobs lost in northern Ontario, because we expect to win this countervail determination.

We have been persistent in making the case for Ontario and Canada since this government took office. One of my first official duties as the Ontario Minister of Natural Resources was to meet with provincial and federal ministers in Ottawa in 1985 to discuss our opposition to any proposed tariff on wood products. Since then, I have criss-crossed the country in frequent meetings with my provincial and federal counterparts, making our position very clear.

Since May 1986, officials of industry and government across this country have worked on this issue full-time. No one can say that this government has failed to do its utmost to put forward the case against the tariff. Ours has been a strong and consistent effort.

The response to the 1982 campaign by the US lumber industry for a protectionist policy directed at Canadian products was carried largely by the Canadian lumber industry, with the support of government. As much as the member for Cochrane South would like to have people believe it, he did not participate in a way he can take any credit for, except that BC sent a minister and they thought it was in the best interests of Ontario that one should be along. He did not take the initiative in any way. The industry itself opposed the countervail. He was there, for whatever reason, and followed the direction of the people who led that countervail.

This time, industry and government are working closely together to provide a united front. I spoke earlier this afternoon about how crucial solidarity is in our effort to fight the US decision. We must maintain a common front. Without it, we weaken our impact. Without it, we play into the hands of the powerful US lumber lobby and congressmen.

Ontario felt so strongly about the need for unity that we went along with the consensus view developed by federal, provincial and industry officials last month in Toronto. During discussions, we made it very clear that we have very serious reservations about the precedent established by offering a settlement before the US had made its preliminary decision on the tariff. The Canadian offer was rejected, but the united front remains.

Let me remind the members who may think it would be in Ontario's interest to go it alone on this issue that tariff duties and export taxes are the responsibility of the federal government. Parochialism simply will not wash in this kind of situation. I should not have to remind members that many of our forest companies operate in more than one Canadian province. This is not simply a problem for the softwood lumber industry; it is a threat to the whole forest industry. We have to have a united front. That industry is complex and interrelated in structure. In terms of export, one sector affects the other, which is one more reason why we need a Canada-wide perspective.

As I told this House during statements, officials from this government meet today with other provincial and federal officials to discuss strategy. Tomorrow I will meet with fellow ministers from other provinces and the federal government to carry on these most important talks. Earlier today, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology and I met with senior representatives of Ontario's forest industry to make sure they understood the problem and where we were going.

This government has its strongest support in our position on countervail. We think we have a solid case. We know we are fighting against a tide of protectionism such that we have not seen in a good long time south of the border, but we will fight and we will fight hard. We believe, for instance, that consumers in the US who will be adversely affected by an increase in the price of Canadian wood products and their domestic manufactured lumber have yet to be heard from with their strong views on this matter.

We also know we have the support of the people of Ontario and Canada in our fight against this unjust and discriminatory decision. I can assure this Legislature we will pursue this issue with all the resources at our command.

I have a couple of personal observations that I think are worth putting on the record. The member for Cochrane South made some comment about where we were and what our position was. I will read something from a report in 1983 after the member for Cochrane South had been interviewed. He said that his meeting with the US Secretary of Commerce did not give him any reason for optimism and that thousands of jobs would be lost in the province if duties were imposed on it for an extended period. He also made some comment relating to Ontario's position in representing our province in the countervail.

I would like to read something else into the record from the very same report that has been handed down from the Department of Commerce International Trade Administration. On page 18 -- and I hope the member for Cochrane South reads this because he should read it into his record -- talking about stumpage, it says: "Again, however, we note that except for information from Ontario, the Canadian government failed to supply actual data on the product specifically produced for each of the major holders of stumpage rights. Ontario made its position very clear."

Mr. Wildman: Does the minister not understand that supports the position of the member for Cochrane South? It does not go against it.

Mr. Davis: At least we gave them the information.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: We gave them the information. That is precisely what they said. Except for Ontario, no one else had given the information. Our information was there and in the kind of order they needed.

The other comment I want to respond to is in a news release that was given by the memb