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

January 5, 1988

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L033 - Tue 5 Jan 1988 / Mar 5 jan 1988

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

SPEECH PATHOLOGY

METROPOLITAN TORONTO GOVERNMENT

SHELTER FOR THE HOMELESS

SOUTH AFRICAN INVESTMENTS

SHELTER FOR THE HOMELESS

DAVE CHAMBERS

NURSES’ LABOUR DISPUTE

HOSPITAL FUNDING

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE PROGRAMS FOR SENIOR CITIZENS

FIRESTONE CANADA INC.

RESPONSES

FIRESTONE CANADA INC.

COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE PROGRAMS FOR SENIOR CITIZENS

FIRESTONE CANADA INC.

ORAL QUESTIONS

FIRESTONE CANADA INC.

PERINATAL CARE

PRA INTERNATIONAL INC.

FIRESTONE CANADA INC.

IDEA CORP.

GOVERNMENT LAND

PRA INTERNATIONAL INC.

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

RETAIL STORE HOURS

AIR QUALITY IN SCHOOLS

METROPOLITAN TORONTO GOVERNMENT

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

PENSION BENEFITS

HANDGUN REPLICAS

PETITION

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES (CONTINUED)

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

Prayers.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

SPEECH PATHOLOGY

Mr. Farnan: I bring to the attention of this House an appalling situation in Cambridge. Inadequate funding for speech pathology services has resulted in a two-year waiting list for adults needing speech therapy.

According to hospital administrator Don Robertson, 38 people have been waiting for treatment since as far back as November 1985. For Elizabeth Hussey, a 35-year-old requiring medical attention, the longer she waits for speech treatment, the less likely it is to be successful.

Diagnosed in September 1987, she has been unable to get treatment due to the lack of trained professionals. Because she must communicate in order to work, this may mean the loss of her employment. “My faith and hope of receiving help was crushed to find out that the speech therapist at the hospital is so overloaded,” she said in a letter to the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) on November 24, 1987.

Communication is our human connection to others. Communication disabilities affect all aspects of daily life, including education, family life and employment.

Many adults in Cambridge wonder why they are being deprived of this important health service. I urge the minister to review the funding for speech pathology services in Cambridge and to provide the funds needed to hire additional trained professionals to cope with the situation.

METROPOLITAN TORONTO GOVERNMENT

Mr. Cousens: I would like to make sure that the people of Metropolitan Toronto are aware that the province introduced a bill known as Bill 29 in late November that will have a significant impact on the future of Metropolitan Toronto.

The government of Metropolitan Toronto has worked extremely well ever since it was created, but I think a large number of questions need to be asked and answered before the bill is passed. Fortunately, the bill will be going to committee in February and will come back to the House for final approval shortly after that, by mid-February.

But do the citizens of Toronto know the changes that are going to be made by Bill 29? Are they aware that the changes will reduce the powers of local councils and possibly make them less meaningful than they have been in the past? Are people in the Toronto area aware that the new Metro council will have joint responsibility with local councils? How well will this work?

Knowing that a separate tier of municipal government was created in Winnipeg, what makes the province so certain that the same system will now work in Metropolitan Toronto?

Our people in this area of Toronto should have a chance to respond and react to the changes in this bill. I hope that people in Toronto who are concerned will make their views known to the clerk of the standing committee on general government before the end of January so that their views can be tabled and considered by the members of this Legislature.

SHELTER FOR THE HOMELESS

Mr. McGuinty: Toronto Roman Catholic Archbishop Emmett Cardinal Carter has requested that landlords with multiple properties set aside one house or apartment for families or individuals who are homeless. In addition, he has requested that each of the 208 parishes in the archdiocese of Metro Toronto also find one house or apartment that can be made available.

On behalf of the members of the Legislature, I wish to congratulate Cardinal Carter.

In addition to the practical effects of his good action, his initiative illustrates an important principle. The housing crisis cannot be solved by government alone. Community involvement is required. Government is powerless alone to control things that influence the lives of people from day to day, and people are victims of impersonal economic laws.

Cardinal Carter is eliciting individual, human, personal responses at a time when they are sorely needed. His initiative has increased the consciousness of all of us. We hope that other churches, voluntary groups and individuals will follow the cardinal’s lead and initiate similar programs across Ontario.

SOUTH AFRICAN INVESTMENTS

Mr. R. F. Johnston: In November of this year, Professor Archibald Thornton of the University of Toronto recommended in a one-man commission to the University of Toronto that it divest all its holdings in South Africa. The president, Mr. Connell, requested that there be written responses to this recommendation by January 4.

Today I am going to be sending a letter to the president of the university, asking him to follow that recommendation to divest all its holdings in South Africa. I am here calling upon the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mrs. McLeod) and the Minister of Citizenship (Mr. Phillips) to do so as well on behalf of the government. Any members of this House who feel strongly about this issue should also make their views known to the governing council of the university before January 11, when it meets to make a decision upon this matter.

SHELTER FOR THE HOMELESS

Mr. Harris: It is interesting to note that the United Nations has not declared an international focus for 1988; 1985 was the International Youth Year, 1986 was the International Year of Peace and 1987 was the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless.

Perhaps the United Nations looked at the performance of the Ontario Liberal government in making its decision not to recognize a social or economic issue for 1988. When it saw the Liberals actually allow the situation for the homeless in this province to worsen during 1987, it must have decided not to recognize any new issues for fear they would suffer the same fate as the homeless at the hands of this government.

I do not want to be totally facetious about a serious matter. I think it appropriate to review this government’s record in 1987, the United Nations International Year of Shelter for the Homeless. This government has failed on at least three counts. The vacancy rate in Metro Toronto has become three times worse than it was when the Liberals first took office. It is estimated there are more than 10,000 people living on the streets of Metro Toronto alone. The Liberals have done nothing to lessen this number in 1987.

Despite the government’s claim about getting people to sit around a table and talk, the actual result is that Bill 51 is an administrative nightmare and housing is no more affordable now than it was at the beginning of 1987.

This is the Liberals’ record during the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless. Thank goodness the United Nations has not asked them to tackle any other social or economic issues in 1988.

DAVE CHAMBERS

Mr. Beer: As honourable members are aware. yesterday Canada’s national junior hockey team won the gold medal at the world junior hockey championships in Moscow, the fourth international championship we have won this season. In any such victory, there are a number of heroes, and certainly goalie Jimmy Waite was outstanding.

Those of us who struggled out of bed early on New Year’s Day saw a splendid match with brilliant goaltending.

My purpose in speaking today is to salute the coach of the team, a friend and constituent of mine from Newmarket, Dave Chambers. For anyone who knows him through his work as the co-ordinator of men’s athletics at York University and as the coach of York’s excellent hockey teams over the past few years: through his work with the Canadian university team at the Spengler Cup tournament in Switzerland, where last year he won the gold medal, and, of course, through his work this year in Moscow. We know that Dave Chambers’s teams are marked by solid teamwork and discipline. These elements have been shown to be, I believe, the keys to Canada’s success in international hockey.

Canada has had some great coaches at the international level. Fr. David Bauer is, of course, the model from which we have all drawn. Dave King, the Canadian Olympic team coach, exemplifies much of Fr. Bauer’s approach and so, I believe, does Dave Chambers.

To Dave, his wife, Irene, and his daughters, Laurie and Linda, I know all members will join me in expressing our delight for a job superbly done.

NURSES’ LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. Laughren: I am very concerned, as I know some other members are, with the continuing public health nurses’ strike at the Sudbury and District Health Unit. It has now been going on for 11 weeks.

The nurses who work at the health unit are simply trying to protect the security of their association, bargain for a modest wage increase, prevent contracting out and prevent the health unit from adding an extra shift without hiring any more people. Those seem to me to be most modest requests of the nurses.

A particular problem has arisen, and I am glad the member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Brown) is here, because at this point there are absolutely no public health services available on the entire island of Manitoulin; none at all. Elderly patients are being asked to make three visits per person to their doctor in order to maintain themselves on the home care program. It seems to me that is an outrageous demand to make of elderly people.

It is time this government established 100 per cent funding for the health units across the province and put in place province-wide bargaining for those nurses, who do such a fine job for all Ontario citizens.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Harris: After two years, we are still waiting for action on the psychiatric hospital in North Bay and the joint hospital in North Bay, and the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) still sits there looking smug.

Mr. Speaker: That completes the allotted time for members’ statements.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE PROGRAMS FOR SENIOR CITIZENS

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: It was announced over a year ago that special funds would be available for the development of new programs for senior citizens in the province’s network of community health centres.

Because of their emphasis on health promotion and disease prevention, CHCs, as these community health centres are referred to, are an ideal vehicle for the reorientation of our health care system towards maintaining health rather than just treating illness.

CHCs, of which there are now 16 in Ontario, are recognized for their ability to encourage people to take greater responsibilities for their personal health by providing multidisciplinary care and services at the community level. They are nonprofit and community-sponsored agencies providing health services tailored to the needs of a particular neighbourhood or a specific target population.

Doctors, nurses and other health care professionals work as a team in assessing patient needs, providing care and treatment, and co-ordinating services to maintain the health of each CHC member. Physicians are salaried instead of paid on a fee-for-service basis.

Community health centres are run by a board of directors composed of health care professionals and representatives of communities being served, they receive their funding from the Ministry of Health through annually negotiated program-based budgets and they now serve approximately 38,000 patients a year across the province.

By strengthening the role of CHCs, our goal is to make them a stronger partner in the mix of health care services available. To do this, the Ministry of Health set aside $1.5 million in new funding so that CHCs wishing to provide additional services for the elderly could do so. Guidelines for the development of specialized programs were sent to CHCs and to district health councils inviting proposals for new and expanded programs.

Today I am pleased to report that we have had a positive response and excellent proposals for new seniors’ programs. On the recommendation of the Metropolitan Toronto District Health Council, I am pleased to announce that seniors who are members of four established CHCs in Metropolitan Toronto will shortly be able to receive specialized support services in their own neighbourhoods. The services are designed to improve their quality of life and help them live independently.

Our ministry has approved $383,223 in total additional annual funding for the four new Metro seniors’ programs at CHCs. The money will be made available immediately to Lawrence Heights Medical Centre, $45,944 for a seniors’ mobilization program; South Riverdale Community Health Centre, $158,825 for a co-ordinated seniors’ services program; Regent Park Community Health Centre, $143,454 for a seniors’ community health care program; and York Community Service Centre, $35,000 for a geriatric counselling program.

York Community Health Centre will offer counselling to elderly people and their families on ageing, stress, isolation, housing and relocation. Referral services to community resources will also be provided. As well, Regent Park CHC will facilitate access to health and social services, and provide nutrition and addiction counselling for its elderly clients. Foot care, dental care and diet counselling will also be available at the centre.

The announcement of these programs today reflects our government’s commitment to preserve and promote the independence and wellbeing of Ontario’s senior citizens.

FIRESTONE CANADA INC.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I wonder if I can indulge the House and ask for unanimous consent for me to give a verbal report on my trip to Findlay, Ohio, this morning.

Mr. Speaker: It is ministerial statements. I think that would be in order.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Mr. Speaker, as you know, Firestone and Cooper Tire and Rubber have been negotiating for some time to sell the Hamilton facility of Firestone to Cooper. On December 23 it was announced that Cooper had broken off negotiations. I travelled to Findlay, Ohio, this morning and met with Ivan Gorr, the president of the Cooper Tire and Rubber company, and William Fitzgerald, who is the president of the tire company, to determine if there is some way we could resurrect the deal.

Unfortunately, I have to report to members that they have made a decision. It is irrevocable. They are going to expand their facility in Tupelo, Mississippi, and will not be proceeding with any further negotiations on Firestone.

I tried to get an understanding of what triggered this, and I have to say that from their comments there was not one single factor. If there was one major deterrent, I would have to suggest it was the time frame they had to work in. Eighty per cent of all the tires produced in the Hamilton facility were to go to the United States market. They had commitments they had to meet. They felt the negotiations with Firestone had dragged on far too long for them to meet those commitments.

I also have to say they had some concerns about labour and they also had some concerns about the government funding. Notwithstanding the $56.3 million that had been offered, they pointed out that the $30 million offered by the province was really the only realistic financing they were getting, because the $13.5-million forgiveness of the industry and labour adjustment program loan was really going to be to the benefit of Firestone. The $6.5-million duty remission program, based on the fact that they do not export, would take them, they said, for ever to realize on.

As well, the retraining amount of $6 million from the federal government was something that would not accrue to their bottom line.

So it was not one single factor, it was a combination of several -- the time, the funding, the labour -- and that was really it. They expressed a desire that they could come back to Ontario at some other time and talk to us about possible other things they could do, and that is how it was left.

RESPONSES

FIRESTONE CANADA INC.

Mr. Mackenzie: I am very interested in the comments the minister has just given to this House concerning the situation with Cooper Tire. It is at some little variance with the information that we got this morning, dealing with the president of Local 207 of the United Rubber Workers in the Findlay, Ohio, plant.

He said he had talked to the industrial relations manager of the Cooper Tire division just this morning, who informed him, first off, that they were aware of the charges that had been made up here by the minister’s deputy minister about the union being at fault, that they did not see that as the problem and that they would be issuing a statement themselves on that matter, and it will be interesting to see it.

They did also say that the timing, as the minister has indicated, was one of the problems. They indicated that the financial package put together was still not that great, and that may or may not have been implicit in the $30 million being the only good money there, as the minister has stated. They also indicated that they had a concern over an environmental matter, which I think this House should be made aware of, if the minister is aware of it himself.

These were the reasons given for the fall-through, and not a problem with the union. As a matter of fact, they specifically stated that they had not reached the stage yet where there were any serious discussions at all as to what might be involved in terms of the union.

This came, I am told, from the industrial relations manager of Cooper Tire to the president of the union local in Findlay, Ohio.

COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE PROGRAMS FOR SENIOR CITIZENS

Mr. Reville: I would like to respond to the statement made today by the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan). Because she was not wearing her flying suit, I guess she did not talk about the airborne division that she has added to the ministry. We, of course, are grateful for these tiny initiatives in respect of health care for seniors.

Two of the community health centres which are going to be receiving funding are well known to me, those being the South Riverdale Community Health Centre and the Regent Park Community Health Centre. I know the people on the boards of those health centres will be delighted to receive this funding.

I must say, though, that community health care continues to take a very tiny, tiny fraction of all the health care expenditure in the province, I think somewhat less than five per cent. Of course, it gives the lie to the government’s rhetoric about trying to change the balance from institutional care to community-based health care programs. I am very sorry to see that.

We clearly need much more in the way of community health in Ontario and, within that framework and delivered through that framework, much more in the way of services for seniors, which will allow them to stay in their homes instead of blocking beds in hospitals, which is partly responsible for the absurd problems we are reading about daily in the press today.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I also would like to add a few comments about the Minister of Health’s statement. Anybody here in this House who has tried to get a community health centre established in his riding in a poor community will understand just how difficult it is and therefore how disappointing it is to hear this very small announcement today. I have been trying to establish a health centre in the Warden Woods community in my riding for about a year and a half now.

I must say the number of hoops you are put through as you try to establish this kind of centre is just phenomenal. Poor communities do not have the resources to be able to work towards the community development work that is necessary to establish a board, to find out all the needs that are required, to get the medical expertise brought in, etc., that they need.

What we really need from this government, a government that has added only four new centres since it has been a government, is some community development money to assist those groups to establish themselves, to go through the process.

As soon as we get that, then they will find applause from this side of the House in terms of initiatives around community health centres, but until we get that, all we have is an incredible number of barriers and hurdles put in the way of communities with great need and great disadvantage which are trying to get these kind of centres and this kind of health option available to them so they have the same kind of access to good health care that the rest of us in the middle class and wealthier sections of this province take for granted.

Mr. Cousens: I would like to comment briefly on the announcements by the Minister of Health and the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs (Mrs. Wilson). I think it is a positive gesture. We all want to see more done for our seniors in the province. as a group an increasing population. We have significant responsibilities to our seniors.

Possibly the minister, in investing money in seniors, can go further and make three more announcements. She will not have enough time, depending on how long the House lasts, but one announcement could expand the announcement so that it meets the needs of northern Ontario, eastern Ontario and western Ontario.

The last three announcements that have been made by the minister have all affected Metropolitan Toronto, which is important, but there are many other people across the province and we should be thinking of our seniors right across the province and coming up with programs that meet all those needs.

The second thing we should be talking about is that there are dollars required now for chronic care beds and for other services for seniors. I would be very impressed to see some action coming out of the government in those directions. Home support services are also a crying need right across the province. If the minister were to come along with the kind of dollars we are talking about and put them into any of the budgets of the regions or municipalities’ it would not make any difference but it would begin to help.

All I can say is, please give a greater emphasis to the needs of seniors and the services for seniors. Our seniors are crying for them, but many of them do not even know that services are available within their communities. The minister has to come along with innovative ways so that seniors will come out of their homes and realize there are services there waiting for them.

We have a great challenge. We laud the minister’s initial efforts and hope she will find many more ways of addressing our most important citizens.

FIRESTONE CANADA INC.

Mr. Harris: I want to comment briefly on the Firestone statement that was made by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter) and say that I am not questioning the minister’s desire to try to salvage a deal nor the statement he has made to us today in that particular narrow focus regard.

I think it is important, but there were a number of things that were said in the summer of 1987. Certainly, the impression was left by this government that if this, this and this were not met in the free trade deal, there was no deal. There was an impression left that the government had something to do or say about it, but after the election, the government said: “No, it is not a provincial responsibility. We cannot do anything. Sorry if you have misinterpreted what we said.”

As well, there was the impression left that this government was going to save the Firestone jobs in Hamilton. Afterwards, of course, that proved not to be possible or not to be the case. I think that should be on the record as well.

The other thing I find interesting in this, or disturbing if you like -- passing strange is the phrase for the month, I guess -- is that the minister has made a statement that the government had nothing to do with this. This was private sector company to private sector company. Then we find out that Mr. Lavelle, who is the deputy minister --maybe the minister does not consider him government; I do not know -- all of a sudden is the man who calls the union and says: “You have half an hour. Here is the deal.”

How does he know the deal if the government was not involved? Why was Mr. Lavelle making this phone call in the first place? I know the minister just got back and has not had time for a written statement, but I hope he will make a statement to answer some of these questions.

Was the government involved or not? If the government was not involved, why was it committing $30 million if it was not at the table; or $40 million, because we heard the Premier (Mr. Peterson) say, “Go down there and offer them another $10 million”? What value for money was being put on these negotiations? Was the minister looking at whether it made sense?

These are questions that my colleague the member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson) has raised. The government was willing to give $30 million, $40 million -- who cares? -- to go down and do whatever it could. The Premier said he would save the jobs. It does not matter what it costs, but $70,000 is the maximum the government will allow for retraining.

On the Lavelle issue, was the minister involved? He cannot have it both ways. He cannot say: “We will give $40 million, but we do not know what is going on. We are not at the table.” Surely that does not make much sense. The other side does not make much sense either, to say, “We are not involved,” when it is Mr. Lavelle, the deputy minister for the government, who seems to be in there, knows what the final deal is, made a statement disputed by many others now that, “Here is the deal; take it or leave it,” and blames it on the union.

There are a number of questions that I think remain to be answered. I hope when the minister has time to collect his thoughts, he will make a more complete statement tomorrow and answer some of these questions and concerns that we have.

ORAL QUESTIONS

FIRESTONE CANADA INC.

Mr. Mackenzie: The Premier will be aware of the information contained in this morning’s Globe and Mail, the fact that Firestone Canada has a total of $46.3 million in deferred taxes, taxes not paid here in Canada. He will also be aware that in two extraordinary transactions, Firestone repatriated $20.8 million in cash back to the United States as per its 1986 statement; and then on January 2, 1987, a board of directors resolution transferred another $53 .7 million back to the United States: a total of $74.5 million, not counting $13.6 million in annual licensing fees. Does the Premier agree with our role as a cash milk cow to these irresponsible corporate blood-suckers?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think my honourable colleague can provide the member with more details on that set of transactions.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I am sure most members have read the report in the Globe and Mail this morning. On my way down to Ohio, I happened to have with me one of my assistants, who is a former vice-president of Coopers and Lybrand. I said to him, “What do you think?” He said: “Let me tell you, you may not like it, but the only way you can change it is to change our federal tax laws. Nothing was done by Firestone that any other corporation could not avail itself of.”

We have a situation where the member may not be happy with the situation, but on the other hand, that is the tax law and you cannot have one tax for one company and another for another. They are just following what they are allowed to do under the corporate tax system, and that is what they were doing. Until someone has shown that what they did was illegal, all you can do is express concern. The member’s point is taken, but representations have to be made to the federal government to deal with the tax laws.

Mr. Mackenzie: Once again to the Premier: What action are the Premier and his government prepared to take --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry; you will have to place your supplementary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

Mr. Mackenzie: To the minister then: What action are the minister and his government prepared to take to ensure that Firestone takes a much more positive role in terms of the employees and their community, who are going to do the suffering while Firestone laughs all the way to its Ohio bank?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: We have announced on several occasions that there is a program in place chaired by Mrs. Anne Jones. We are looking at counselling. We are doing all the things we can do to help those workers. The very first thing I did when I landed in Toronto today was to call both Charlie Scime, the president of the union, and Bob Morrow, the mayor of Hamilton, to inform them of what we are doing and to assure them of our co-operation.

Mr. Mackenzie: Does this lack of good corporate citizenship not finally convince the minister and his party of the need for plant closure legislation that might give us some time and protection for workers? Apart from the greed of the Firestone company and the negotiations that went on, plus the current milking of the Canadian branch plant, the minister will note that the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce also got its $30 million out in a hurry, money it had in deferred shares in the company.

Will the minister not work with the federal government very quickly to see that the deferred taxes, the industry and labour adjustment program moneys plus other moneys owing to the workers are picked up or put in some form of trust or held before everything is ripped out of Canada?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member will know that the ILAP $13.5 million is in a trust fund. Certainly, as a result of my meeting today, I will be conveying the information I have to my counterpart in Ottawa and we will be working with the federal government.

PERINATAL CARE

Mr. Reville: My question is to the Minister of Health. The Minister of Health has managed to get free trade out of the newspapers temporarily by arranging to have the skies of Ontario and the United States full of aircraft transporting babies and expectant mothers from Metro to hospitals outside Metro. I wonder whether the minister would care to comment if that is all we can expect from our $5.6-billion institutional care budget?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Let me share with the members of the House my own concern over the events which have been reported in the last couple of days and share with the member and members of the House the information I have regarding our provincial perinatal system.

We have a system in this province that responds to the needs for high-risk births. There are five hospitals in the province that are designated level-3 perinatal units, and there are five which are modified. Of the first five, two are located in Metropolitan Toronto, and one each in Hamilton, London and Kingston. The other five are located in North Bay, Thunder Bay, Sault Ste. Marie, Sarnia and Windsor.

All of these hospitals are capable of responding to high-risk birth situations. The only difference between the first five that I mentioned and the second five is the educational and research capacity. The response is through a centralized registry so that we can respond to the needs of patients requiring that kind of care.

The concern I have is the capacity within that system, and I have asked for additional information from the ministry. Notwithstanding that concern, I can tell the member and the members of this House that our system is an interprovincial and international system to ensure that residents of Ontario have the services they need and that we can respond to their needs. I am concerned about the capacity of the system and will be addressing that.

Mr. Reville: It is totally unacceptable for the Minister of Health to stand here and recite a list of programs that clearly have not worked for the people needing health care in this province. One of the situations is not a perinatal situation; it is a neonatal situation.

There is a young baby now starting its first few days of life in Buffalo, for goodness’ sake. I am not sure whether that should be visited on a citizen of Ontario, particularly when this government crows about how crumby the US health care system is and how wonderful our system is. Yet there is a little, unknown baby in Buffalo Children’s Hospital, where the administrator is a refugee from the Hospital for Sick Children. He says when he was here, it would never have happened. I want the minister to comment on that.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: As I stated, without the theatrics of the member opposite -- because I do not believe this is a situation we should be theatrical about, but instead should assure the people of this province that their health care needs are being responded to -- my concern is that we have a system that has the capacity to meet those needs.

The situation he is referring to specifically about the infant who was sent for care to Buffalo was a result, unfortunately, of a nursing shortage at the Hospital for Sick Children. There was no lack of beds or respirators; there was a nursing shortage. I am concerned that it is not so much that the nurses are not available as the fact that this particular job is extremely stressful and it is very hard to find nurses who will do this type of nursing. The requirements are very onerous.

However, the needs of Ontario citizens are being met, and we are working to ensure that the capacity is there to meet the needs in the future.

Mr. Reville: The minister sees fit to chide me for being theatrical. I suspect Mr. and Mrs. Sisnett thought it was pretty theatrical to hop into a Lear jet. I suspect the mother, who was afraid of flying, thought it was pretty theatrical to get into a helicopter to go to Buffalo so that the child could be cared for there.

Is it not the case, and will the minister perhaps advise the House, that there were spaces available right here in Toronto but that because the policy says they deal only with maternal transfers and this baby who has gone to Buffalo was already born, it could not use the space that was available here in Ontario? I would like to ask the minister whether she thinks that is an acceptable approach to delivering health care services and what she is going to do about it.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The information I have is that, in the case of the infant who was transferred to Buffalo, space was not available at Mount Sinai Hospital. Checks were made -- and this is within the system -- at all other Ontario hospitals to see if they could offer the care required. We checked as well with hospitals in Montreal and in other US cities, and then the child was sent once we found a place in Buffalo.

On the other hand, in Ontario, as part of this interprovincial and international network, we accept cases from other provinces and other jurisdictions as well as attempting, in this very highly specialized and very important area of perinatal care, to respond to the needs of residents of Ontario, citizens, and also those people in other jurisdictions who are part of our centralized network.

Mr. Brandt: My question is also to the Minister of Health with respect to the same topic.

We have a situation where a mother had to be flown to Kingston to have triplets, as the minister is aware. Today we are advised that a newbom infant had to be taken to Buffalo. We have since learned, in addition to the information that my honourable colleague has shared with us, that a critically ill newbom was recently taken from Thunder Bay to Winnipeg. So we have a situation where we are flying these newboms out of the city, out of the province and out of the country.

With a world-class health system with world-class hospitals, can the minister indicate to this House very clearly how this situation can be allowed to continue?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: One of the questions I asked, because of the concerns that I personally expressed to members of this House, was exactly that; that is, what is the capacity of the system’? What I was told is that we have experienced in the last couple of days an unusual peak, if you will. It is very difficult, in these kinds of high-risk, premature birth situations to anticipate when the births are going to take place. That is the very nature of what this is all about.

However, I am concerned because our system is reaching capacity, as noted by the fact that we are utilizing our system and working with other provinces as well to meet the needs of Ontario residents. I will be moving in the very near future to add capacity to the system in Ontario so that we can ensure we will meet the needs of Ontario residents.

Mr. Eves: These are not mere isolated incidents in the last couple of days. Last year some 24 women with high-risk pregnancies were transferred to other hospitals throughout Ontario from Toronto alone, as I am sure the minister is aware. Now we have three instances in the first five days of 1988.

From the 1985 to 1986 fiscal years, there was an increase of 2,000 newborn admissions to hospitals in Ontario, yet the Ministry of Health increased the number of newborn beds by only 37. Why?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I want to make sure the member is very clear in not confusing newborn beds with the perinatal system beds. These particular beds, which are part of a province-wide system -- there are 10 hospitals that respond -- are very specialized and highly sophisticated in their needs and requirements. These are for low-birthweight infants, many of whom would previously not have survived.

I want the member to know how pleased I am that we have the kind of health care system in Ontario that can respond to those kinds of needs and save lives of infants who previously would not have survived.

Mr. Eves: The minister has not begun to respond to the question of why there were only 37 beds.

A spokesperson for the Hospital for Sick Children indicated to us this morning that there is “a constant juggling of babies” at the Hospital for Sick Children. The Ontario Nurses’ Association says that there is a nursing shortage. This is nothing new. The minister has known about this for a long time. I brought it to her attention two months ago in this Legislature, as a matter of fact.

Ted Stibbards, who heads the Buffalo Children’s Hospital, is quoted as saying it is very unusual to find this sort of situation occurring. “It would indicate that things are different than when I was there.” Stibbards, as the minister knows, used to head up the Hospital for Sick Children here in Toronto. He left the hospital in 1984. He indicates that in the nine years he was the head of Sick Kids prior to 1984, this type of situation never once occurred.

The Liberals have been in charge of the health care system in Ontario since 1985. They have seen all these things developing over the past two and a half or three years. Why have they not done anything about it? Are they going to give this House a commitment today that they are going to spend the amount of money that is necessary to bring this health care system back to world-class, where it belongs and from whence they took it?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Let me say that, while I have concerns about the provision of perinatal care-and I have addressed that issue, I think, in this House at this time and I would also be willing to discuss it further with the member opposite -- I am very proud of the steps this government has taken over the past two and a half years to improve health care in this province. The increases to base budgets in the past two years have been unprecedented. The amount of money, $850 million, into expansion of the institutional sector has been significant and we are moving forward.

However, we cannot take and we are not taking all of those for granted. We recognize there may be areas where we must increase and expand. Let me say that funding is not a problem in the area of perinatal care. There are other factors, such as nursing care, which is a concern. However, I am looking at expansion of the system and I hope to be able to have an announcement in the near future.

PRA INTERNATIONAL INC.

Mr. Brandt: My question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. It is with respect to the matter that was raised in the House yesterday regarding PRA International Inc. in London.

As the minister is aware, the mandate of the Biddell report was to identify companies that were in trouble or in need of future support. That was indicated in the release by the former Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, the member for Quinte (Mr. O’Neil), on October 14, 1986. He very clearly indicated that was what Biddell was to find out.

The Deputy Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, Patrick Lavelle, indicated that he had a copy of the Biddell report in his possession in early February 1987. The government had fully four months either to secure its investment in PRA International or to secure the technology by making a further investment in that same firm.

Can the minister indicate to us now why at least the part of the Biddell report related to PRA cannot be released to the members of this Legislature?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The leader of the third party will know that Jack Biddell submitted his report and was asked to follow up with a couple of other reports that he is still working on. Notwithstanding that the recommendations he had made have been implemented by the Ontario Development Corp. and, as a matter of fact, in his latest report the Provincial Auditor was satisfied that all of those things had been looked after. In fact, in his reporting letter to me he said there was no matter of consequence that he could even comment on in the operation of that portfolio by the Ontario Development Corp.

Mr. Brandt: Who is in charge? We heard yesterday the Premier (Mr. Peterson) respond to my question by indicating that the IDEA Corp. was totally independent and made all of its own decisions.

Mr. Pope: Now the ODC.

Mr. Brandt: Now the ODC or is it in fact the government? We are trying to get to the bottom of who in fact approved of the moneys related to this particular corporation.

It is interesting to note that a representative of the Ontario Development Corp. who sat on the board of PRA quoted in the London Free Press that they were interested in the Plasmarray system that was being developed by PRA, and he said of this particular system: “It was leading-edge stuff. If more money had been spent to market it, the company might have made it.”

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Brandt: I want to get to that, but I had to give this background.

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate all that and I allowed the member to give all that background. Would you please place the question?

Mr. Brandt: I am glad you asked, Mr. Speaker.

The question to the minister is, since more money might have saved the firm, why did he or someone not intervene either to provide more money to PRA International Inc. to bring this technology to the point where it was marketable, or --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: If I could just briefly go through the chronology of how this worked, in December 1985 a decision was made by the IDEA Corp. Even though this government had announced that it was going to wind it up, IDEA was still in control. They made the announcement that they were going to provide the funds. In July 1986, the IDEA Corp. was turned over and the portfolio was put under the management of the Ontario Development Corp., where it is now.

By the time Mr. Biddell’s report came in, the report went to the Ontario Development Corp., which was responsible for administering the IDEA portfolio.

On the one hand, the member is asking why we did not give them more money and, on the other hand, he is asking why did we not just cut them off and save --

Mr. Brandt: One or the other.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The point is that the decisions were made in a prudent, businesslike way. Representations were made. The member has heard of the now famous letter from Mr. Parkes to the Premier (Mr. Peterson) in which he asked for $500,000. That was subsequently turned down by ODC because the business case could not be made. It is as simple as that.

Mr. Brandt: We questioned why the government gave the money in the first place, but after it did, there was at least some chance that the government might have been able to save the firm or, on the other hand, cut the losses.

Let me read from a press release in February by the former minister. “The affairs of the IDEA Corp. will be phased out as of June 30, 1986, Treasurer Robert Nixon and Industry, Trade and Technology Minister Hugh O’Neil announced today. In the interim period, the affairs of the corporation will be the responsibility of Mr. O’Neil.” That is what he said in his press release.

I want to ask the minister, since we are trying to get to the bottom of PRA, how the moneys were given in the first place and why the company was allowed to get rid of its assets to the banks, and perhaps to corporations south of the border in the United States --

Mr. Speaker: Minister --

Mr. Brandt: We have raised the question with the minister -- this is my question, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I distinctly heard you put a question.

Mr. Brandt: No, I am getting to the question.

Mr. Speaker: You are?

Mr. Brandt: As the Provincial Auditor has no statutory powers to check into the affairs of private companies or to ask for any of those files will the minister now agree, since the only way he is going to get to the bottom of this is through a judicial inquiry, to undertake a judicial inquiry to determine what happened to the $1.5 million in PRA International?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member should know, because he used to occupy this portfolio, that when the government gets involved in the funding of these industries in Ontario they are usually funders of last resort. If the company could go to normal lending institutions such as banks and pledge assets, pledge securities, it would not come to us. Unfortunately, that is the role we play.

As those members who were at estimates will remember, the members of the official opposition felt we should be risking even more money and that we were running a too small-c conservative operation.

The point I am trying to make is that when this thing runs, the Provincial Auditor will be checking all of these things. If he decides that in his opinion there should be further investigation, he will be free to recommend that to us. But, in the meantime, he is a servant of this House. He is going to take a look at the whole operation and will report to this House for further determination if required.

FIRESTONE CANADA INC.

Mr. Mackenzie: I have another question for the Premier. He is reputed to have first heard of the closing of the Firestone Canada Inc. plant through a note passed on to him at a social function by the president of Firestone Canada.

Do these corporate pirates also inform the Premier that this is the second time they have done this in Ontario? The Whitby plant had everything possible taken out of it when Firestone closed the operation down. Has he also informed the Premier of what the union just found out this afternoon --that is, that their pension fund is not fully funded? As a matter of fact, it is underfunded to the tune of $8.9 million at this time.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not familiar with the details the member is raising, but I would be very happy to have the minister check into it.

Mr. Mackenzie: Will the Premier also tell us what we should tell the workers at Firestone who have contacted the Pension Commission of Ontario and been told at least five years are allowed to fully fund the $8.9 million missing from their pension fund? Indeed, they may want to take as long as 15 years.

Some of those workers are going to want to settle their affairs, put their money into registered retirement savings plans, do other matters, and they are now faced with the possibility that they may not be able to get their money out because of the lack of full funding in that pension plan. Can he tell us what we should tell the people in terms of this situation?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I appreciate the honour-able member bringing that to my attention. I was not aware of it. I will ask the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. R. F. Nixon), who is responsible, to immediately launch an investigation, and we will make sure there are absolutely no violations of the law of Ontario.

I thank the honourable member for bringing it to my attention.

IDEA CORP.

Mr. Harris: I have a question for the Premier. The Premier will be aware that on December 11, 1986, the standing committee on public accounts, an all-party committee, recommended that a judicial inquiry be launched into the activities of the IDEA Corp., especially at that time as it pertained to the Wyda Systems and the Graham Software investments.

That was over a year ago that an all-party committee recommended a judicial inquiry into the IDEA Corp. Could the Premier tell us why, once again, like the select committee on retail store hours, like the debacle he is making out of the committee studying free trade, he chose to ignore a recommendation made by a committee of this House, one that maybe now he will acknowledge might have saved us a substantial amount of money?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not think there is any evidence of that at all. We have gone through the chronology of that situation. I gather the honourable member’s position now is that we should give them more money. I think the Provincial Auditor will get to the bottom of this entire matter and I have every confidence in his judgement and his impartiality.

Mr. Harris: The Premier refers to the auditor. Our office contacted the Provincial Auditor this morning. The spokesman for the auditor said he had yet to receive any communication from the minister, the Premier or the government. They had no idea of any terms of reference, no idea how long an audit would take and, in fact, the first they had heard of it up to that point was through the media.

The referral to the auditor is not enough. The Premier will know that the auditor has no statutory authority to check private companies and the only way to get access to find out what really went on is to have a complete public review.

Will the Premier not now accept the recommendation, albeit 13 months later, of the public accounts committee and agree to a judicial inquiry of the whole situation?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not want to be unkind, but I think the honourable member’s facts are wrong again. The auditor was spoken to yesterday by the Secretary of the Cabinet, asking if he could undertake this inquiry. He said yes, and in fact I understand they are working on it today. I think my honourable friend will want to check who his so-called official spokesman is and check out his facts before he puts those suggestions in the House.

GOVERNMENT LAND

Mr. Mahoney: My question is to the Minister of Government Services. Many projects come forward from time to time in municipalities that require co-operation from the provincial government in various forms. One of those forms is to provide excess provincial land. They range from housing complexes to sports facilities to garden plots. If these projects are worth while, a partnership among this level of government, the municipal sector and the private sector would seem to make good sense.

Will the minister consider providing land on long-term leases for nominal amounts to municipalities for projects approved by the councils of those municipalities that would be to the overall benefit of the community?

Hon. Mr. Patten: I would like to thank my colleague the member for Mississauga West. He asks a variety of questions that I think deserve some clear answers.

First of all, his reference to government lands related to housing. He will be aware that our particular ministry plays an important role by reviewing the housing potential of every piece of government land that we have in the province. Of course, there are ongoing discussions because of the great interest by the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hosek) related to the use of land for housing. These discussions take place as well as, of course, the Housing First deputy ministers’ committee, which is looking for a variety of ways of strengthening that role.

In relation to municipal recreational uses, in terms of sale, our policy is to offer land for direct purchase at market value to these particular municipalities. Of course, the member will know that the municipalities themselves, depending on the purpose in terms of the use of these lands, can apply to other government programs for support in order to do that.

When it comes to leasing, we have a program --

Mr. Speaker: Order. It seemed like a fairly extensive response.

Mr. Mahoney: It did indeed, Mr. Speaker. If the honourable members opposite knew the seriousness of this situation, they would not be making such silly remarks. It seems to me that an opportunity to provide incentive to the private sector, which they would not understand, to provide facilities that would otherwise have to be paid for by the property tax or by the provincial tax is a good idea.

Will the minister consider a program to provide this incentive to the private sector through land use planning in co-operation with the municipalities?

Hon. Mr. Patten: As I think the member would know, we are always happy to entertain proposals that come forward that show strong co-operation for the use of lands for the people of Ontario.

I might add that in terms of the leasing arrangements -- and I think the member’s part of the province falls under what was previously called the park belt plan -- under that arrangement, special leasing arrangements are made with municipalities in the surrounding areas. Some have already been done with some of the municipalities in terms of recreational use. Of course, the province always retains the option for future development of these lands by making these lease arrangements. If the member is asking whether lease arrangements are possible, the answer is yes, they are.

PRA INTERNATIONAL INC.

Mr. Philip: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology arising out of his statement yesterday and also, in part, from his less than complete answer to the first question by the leader of the Conservative Party.

Yesterday the minister stated that the Biddell report, a report which the standing committee on public accounts was told by Mr. Biddell was complete, would be provided to the Provincial Auditor for his inquiry into PRA International. Can we therefore assume that the Biddell report deals with the loss of the $1.5 million through PRA, and can the minister tell the House what rationalization he has that he is willing to provide the Provincial Auditor with this report but his government is not prepared to provide the public accounts committee and the public with that report?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: To the first part of the question, I cannot assure the member that the report deals with PRA because at the time that report was compiled -- the first part of the report that I am talking about -- the $1.5 million was not lost.

What we have is a situation where we are going to provide Mr. Biddell’s report to the Provincial Auditor. We will also provide the subsequent reports. There are two other reports that he is still preparing. When those are complete, they will be provided to the Provincial Auditor. When he is finished, he is going to be able to provide everything, including that report, to this Legislature to be dealt with as the Legislature sees fit.

Mr. Philip: It is an interesting situation we have, where yesterday the minister said he will provide a report and now he is not sure whether the report has any relevance to the inquiry that the Provincial Auditor is undertaking. No doubt a number of documents will be examined by the Provincial Auditor during his forensic audit, which the Premier (Mr. Peterson) agreed to yesterday.

Will the minister guarantee the House today that no government restrictions will be placed on any of those documents in their use by the auditor and, at the auditor’s pleasure, on the release of those documents, where he sees fit, both to the public accounts committee and to the public?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I would be pleased to provide that assurance that there will be no restriction on the documents that are provided to the Provincial Auditor. He certainly will have the freedom, at his discretion of course, to provide whatever he wants to the Legislature.

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. Sterling: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. In response to a question from my leader yesterday, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) said: “I do not think my friend should get the impression that any secret information is being suppressed in this matter. We are sharing these things with him and are happy to do so.”

We have information that the government has commissioned a report on free trade from Informetrica Ltd. of Ottawa. We are also led to believe that the government is in receipt of this report. Will the minister clarify whether he has commissioned or has received this report at this time?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Unfortunately, I am not aware of the report. I will be happy to look into it for him and get back to the member.

Mr. Sterling: I thought he might not be aware of it. We are informed that this report, which has been commissioned by the minister’s Liberal government, is supportive of free trade. Perhaps the reason he is being either not told about this or has no knowledge of it is the fact that the results of this report are against his particular position. If the minister gets a chance to ask his staff about this report, will he immediately live up to the promises of the Premier and table that report forthwith?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I have already given the member my assurance that I will look into that report and get back to him on it.

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

Mr. Adams: My question is for the Minister of Education. Across the province, public and separate boards are negotiating school transfers. In my own riding of Peterborough, I am urging all concerned to try to settle the matter within the community, avoiding the external arbitration route. Are there boards which are successfully completing negotiations on their own?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I want to thank the honourable member for his question. I point out to him that negotiations are indeed continuing in the Peterborough area regarding the accommodation needs of both the public and separate boards. I also want to assure the member that, overwhelmingly, jurisdictions throughout this province have dealt with this matter successfully, arriving at solutions within the community, whether they be by the willing transfer of facilities, entering into lease arrangements or through sharing arrangements.

Mr. Adams: In the event negotiations fail within the community, what sort of support is there for the parties concerned?

Hon. Mr. Ward: The ministry will lend whatever assistance it can to parties involved in such disputes. The Planning and Implementation Commission monitors the negotiations very carefully and provides advice and assistance when required, as well as the ministry directly. Again, I want to stress that mediation and arbitration are utilized only as an absolute last resort.

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Mrs. Grier: I have a question for the Premier. It follows from the exchange I had yesterday with the Minister of the Environment. It is very difficult to ask supplementary questions of the Minister of the Environment because there is nothing to be supplementary to; so it is in effect a supplementary to the Premier.

Yesterday the Minister of the Environment admitted that his ministry had commissioned no systematic study of the effects of free trade on the environment.

An hon. member: Here he is.

Interjections.

[Applause]

Mr. Breaugh: The only place in the world where the third string gets applause.

Mrs. Grier: Can the Premier explain why his government, which purports to have such a strong concern for the environment, which has commissioned reports on the effect of the free trade deal on women and on the effect of the dispute settlement mechanism and is looking into a constitutional audit of the free trade deal, has failed to recognize the very significant impact this deal could have on our ability to make environmental decisions and is undertaking no systematic study of that effect?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I know you will understand this. I have never been as relieved to see anybody in my entire life. I will refer this to the very competent Minister of the Environment.

Mr. Speaker: I understand the Premier has referred this to the Minister of the Environment.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I am pleased to assist in providing an answer to this question. If members of this House will recall, one of the first people in the country of Canada to point out the potential difficulties of a free trade agreement was the Minister of the Environment of Ontario.

At the meeting of the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers in Alberta, not this past year but the year previous to that, I raised this issue. At the same time, I raised the issue of attempting to have the proceedings of that meeting held as a public meeting. Unfortunately, the other ministers did not agree with that, but on that occasion I expressed that.

This past summer, when we had a special meeting of the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers right here in Toronto -- and it was reported in some of the Toronto newspapers --I once again indicated the disapproval of our province from an environmental point of view and raised the same questions.

I have utilized as well the information provided by environmental groups, many of which receive funding from the provincial government for various research projects, and I have utilized the information of people from universities as well as the very expert opinion of the people from the Ministry of the Environment. All of these have been useful instruments in making --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much. Supplementary.

Mrs. Grier: I would be the very last person to suggest that the minister had not talked about his concerns or had not raised his concerns. I was trying to ask a question, to find out what they had done about those concerns, and I was very specifically going to raise with the Premier a quote from a speech of his which said that “a healthy economy and a healthy environment are not contradictory.”

The Minister of the Environment has supported the recommendations of the World Commission on Environment and Development, which include the fundamental belief that environmental and economic planning cannot proceed in separate spheres. Yet in the discussion and the action of this government with respect to the free trade deal, we have not seen action with respect to the environment.

Mr. Speaker: The question would be?

Mrs. Grier: Can the minister explain on behalf of the government why the resolution opposing free trade which this House has been debating lo these many years or days -- it seems like years-and which includes in its

preamble a number of instances in which the government disagrees with the Mulroney-Reagan free trade deal has no mention --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Minister.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I suppose any resolution that we could bring forward could contain almost endless lists of the potential ramifications of the free trade agreement on Ontario. Indeed, our province has looked beyond our borders to the country of Canada. But I, as the --

Mr. Breaugh: Wait a minute. We are in Canada still.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Yes, that is right.

Mr. Speaker: The response.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I am simply saying that we in Ontario take a national outlook when dealing with issues of this kind, as our Premier has on many occasions. What I indicate to the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore is that our province was in the forefront of bringing to the attention of others the potential adverse impact of a free trade agreement on the environment. Everybody in the province who is aware of environmental issues can spot the potential problems that would exist.

We could commission a hundred studies on it, which would no doubt confirm what we have said, but I think anyone -- and I include the member in this, of course -- who is at all aware of environmental issues would know without a very detailed study being presented that there are a lot of potential downsides to a free trade agreement for the environment. I think her input, the input of all members of this House and my input, as only one member, will bring to the attention of all and sundry the adverse consequences, potentially, of a free trade agreement.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Harris: Yesterday there was an ad that appeared in the Toronto Star. One man felt that $13,000 of his own money was not too much to spend. It mentions that the Legislature’s all-party select committee on retail store hours studied hundreds of briefs. “These MPPs unanimously recommended a common pause day.”

Mr. Speaker: The question is to which minister?

Mr. Harris: My question is to the Premier. Last May, just before the Sunday shopping committee that was referred to released its report the Premier stated that unless there was “something terribly offensive in the report” he could support its major recommendation. Since the election, the Premier, with his majority, has completely ignored the all-party recommendation.

I wonder if the Premier can tell this House what he found so terribly offensive in that report that caused him to completely change his position on Sunday shopping.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Just one correction of fact. I do not believe it is one man’s money; I believe it is one corporation’s money and that is, of course, tax deductible. The federal government and the provincial government did assist in putting that ad in the newspaper and we were very happy to do that in the interest of free speech.

Second, with respect to the --

Mr. Sterling: What a rationalization.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I just want to correct the facts, because they are important in discussing this issue.

We came to the conclusion, after very serious scrutiny of the report, that it was unworkable, that it would just add more overlays and more complications of the situation and was, in a sense, unenforceable. We came to the conclusion that since retail stores are controlled now six days a week -- indeed, seven days a week -- by municipalities with respect to the tourist exemption, it was a fair, reasonable, democratic way to go. Interestingly enough, it works extremely well in a number of other provinces. I am sure that as soon as my honourable colleague has studied that and wrapped his mind around it, he will come to the same conclusion.

Mr. Harris: The Premier says it is unenforceable, so he gives it to the municipalities to enforce. Is that not great?

Does the Premier not realize that he is making a mockery of the committees around this Legislature? There is a committee studying free trade. The Premier is saying, “We would like you to study the free trade deal, but whatever you come up with does not matter because we have already made up our minds.” There was the committee on Sunday shopping which made a recommendation, and all three parties signed it, but the Premier is saying: “We do not care what you found. We are going to do what we want because I am in charge now and I have 94 seals to help me.”

Hon. Mr. Scott: Would you buy a turkey from the leader of the third party?

Mr. Harris: Some of the seals are bigger than others.

Last August in the middle of an election, after plenty of time to study the report, the Premier said there was widespread support for a common pause day and he would not be making any changes. I will ask the Premier again: Other than getting the 94 seals behind him, letting him do whatever he wants, what caused the Premier to change his mind so dramatically on the Sunday shopping issue?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My honourable friend accuses this government of not listening to the committees of the House. I do not think that is a fair charge because I have the highest respect for the members of this House, unlike my friends opposite.

His leader put in an emergency resolution in favour of the free trade agreement some time in December, even prior to the committee having a look at it. How could that be-a member prepared to make up his mind in the absence of thorough study, the way the government has studied this issue? I do not think my honourable friend’s charge is credible in that regard.

As I said to my friend with respect to the question he has asked, we came to the conclusion, after very serious scrutiny, that the proposals of the select committee on retail store hours were unworkable. That is why we have come up with a solution we think is practical, sensible, democratic and progressive. We believe the majority of people in this province will support this major step forward.

[Later]

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I would like to rise to correct the record and to apologize if I have misled any members of the House. Earlier today, I indicated that the Premier had 94 seals. One swam away and there are now only 93. I would like to correct the record.

AIR QUALITY IN SCHOOLS

Mr. R. F. Johnston: My question is for the Minister of Education. For well over a year now, my predecessor, the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen), has been raising the question of air quality in a lot of our schools in Ontario. In the last two days, we have heard now of cases in Toronto of levels 10 to 12 times higher than government standards in terms of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and mould in the air. Can the minister at this point tell us how many schools in Ontario have negative air quality in them and what he is doing about it?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I cannot tell the member for Scarborough West how many schools in Ontario are reporting problems with air quality, but I will endeavour to get that information for him and report back to him.

With reference to the stories that appeared this morning, particularly as they relate to a public school in Etobicoke, I want to assure him that the Ministry of Labour did undertake specific testing there. The board was advised this morning that carbon dioxide levels at that school were within acceptable standards. As a result of a complaint by an employee at that school some year and a half ago, the Ministry of Labour was called in to do some inspections. The board was given some advice on how to improve ventilation and take some remedial steps. Those maintenance efforts were successful and they were able to reduce the levels to an acceptable limit.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I gather from this that the ministry has not done any systematic testing of schools in Ontario and has not itself established, in liaison with the Ministry of Labour, any standards for what is acceptable air quality in these kinds of schools in Ontario. Is the minister intending to do either of those things?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I want to assure the member that my ministry will be working closely with the Ministry of Labour. I have asked officials from within my ministry to provide me with information on this issue and the issue that has been raised previously by the member for Hamilton West. I can assure him that I will report back to him further as soon as we have any additional available information.

I do want to point out that the ministry, in terms of its role and its funding arrangements in the construction of new school facilities, expects boards to meet the local building standards and to meet the standards for ventilation systems throughout this province. If we determine that those standards are not being met, we will advise the boards appropriately.

On the other hand, I want to assure the member that officials within my ministry will be providing me with further information as to the extent of the problem and I will share it with him as soon as it is available.

METROPOLITAN TORONTO GOVERNMENT

Mr. Cousens: I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs about the restructuring of Metropolitan Toronto. The minister has asked each area municipality to draw up proposals for ward boundaries. We know the federal government has established independent commissions to develop boundaries in electoral areas. The province has had an independent commission which selected our boundaries.

In the creation of the seventh-largest electoral system in Canada with the creation of Metropolitan Toronto government, how appropriate is it for Metro’s municipal politicians to devise their own electoral boundaries? Would the public not be better served by an independent commission to allocate these changes and award these ward boundaries?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: Let me say that this is in response to the municipalities; they could put together and be responsible for the area they know best. I think that is the best route to go. We have been in constant touch with the clerks in the municipalities. They tell me things are moving ahead well and they are going to have their wards in place. I think it is going to be an excellent response to their concerns.

Mr. Cousens: We certainly hope the minister is right because gerrymandering is something we would not want to see.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cousens: It is just a simple fact.

By changing the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act, great confusion is going to be created between local councillors and Metro councillors. Citizens will be confused about who is going to do what and when and where in Metro. Local councillors and Metro councillors will be in conflict over areas of mutual responsibility. A war zone will be created between the big Metro council and local councils.

How is the minister going to clear up the confusion of local citizens, remove areas of conflict between councillors and Metro councillors and make certain there is not a war zone between Metro council and municipal councils?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: What we are proposing here is in direct response to the people, to the municipalities, to the municipal councillors. As the member knows, a task force was appointed a year and a half or two years ago, and almost the unanimous response from the municipalities was to create a direct election to Metro and to do those things which the people can relate to. At the Metro council at present, there is confusion. I can tell the member that when this is completed there will be no confusion, because Metro council will now be responsible for a budget of some $2 billion and to some two million people. It is going to answer the response of the people who have asked for these proposals.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Callahan: Mr. Speaker, this is my supplementary; it is to the Minister of Housing. Some time ago in the House I asked the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) whether her newly formed committees would provide alternatives to the matter of abortion.

Carrying through on that, I would like to ask the Minister of Housing, recognizing that one of the largest obstacles, as I understand it, to young people in terms of alternatives to seeking abortion is the matter of affordable housing, whether she would consider favourably applications by church, charitable and whatever other groups wish to dedicate land and to provide that type of housing as a real alternative to what is presently the only option, that of abortion, and allow those people to bring the child to full term and either have the child adopted or continue to raise the child themselves.

Hon. Ms. Hosěk: I would like to assure the member that one of the groups we are particularly concerned about is young women who are responsible for children, which in many cases they are raising alone. They are one of the very major groups of people for whom there is support in housing in Ontario.

Of course, if the churches would be interested in providing church land for the provision of housing through the nonprofit sector, we would be very glad to have them do it. I think that is a very good use of church land and we welcome their participation with the Ministry of Housing in getting support for the nonprofit buildings that, I assume, would result and would give such housing.

PENSION BENEFITS

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question for the Minister of Financial Institutions. The minister will be aware that over three million working people in Ontario do not have a pension plan. That represents about 60 per cent of working people and for women workers it is 70 per cent. I would like to ask the minister, in view of the fact that the majority of workers do not have pension plans, is his government considering any proposal at the provincial level that would offer alternatives to these workers so that they can retire in dignity and with financial security?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The treasurers, meeting with the Minister of Finance, have had discussions on improving the provisions of the Canada pension plan. Mr. Speaker, you will recall that those improvements were announced and legislated nationally some months ago. There is also some consideration by an ad hoc group associated with the treasurers and the Minister of Finance for at least some review of the possibility of homemakers’ pensions, although there is certainly no policy commitment by any treasurer I know of to that, other than the interest that this Treasurer has expressed on a number of occasions.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Since attempting to make changes in the Canada pension plan takes a long time and requires the consent of the provinces and the federal government, would it not be appropriate that Ontario show leadership in this field and that it look at the proposal that was made during the last provincial election campaign for an Ontario pension plan that would guarantee an income for people who are retiring, offer them the option at age 60 to retire, and obviously would also have the other positive effect of opening up job opportunities for our young people in the province? Is it not time the minister showed some leadership in this field?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, you may recall that a committee of this Legislature reviewed a report that recommended a separate provincial pension plan some years ago. The report of that committee -- I think the Premier (Mr. Peterson) himself was one of the leading contributors to the thought processes that led to that review -- and the Legislature gave very careful consideration to the alternative the honourable member describes.

The Canada pension plan has been changed to allow retirement at 60 with reduced payments, and the proposal has been made by a number of people, including the finance critic of the member’s own party, that our provisions ought to be brought into line with that. I certainly think that is something that is worthy of continuing review.

HANDGUN REPLICAS

Mr. Cureatz: I have a question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. As the minister is well aware, in the United States and now in Ontario, there has been a growing concern about the sale of replica handguns. We have encountered a tragedy that has taken place in Ontario where an individual lost his life holding such a weapon.

Is the minister, through his ministry, considering investigating the possibility, if not of bringing in legislation, at least of looking at the possibility of working with the manufacturers of such weapons to alter them to such a degree that it can be visibly seen that they are not a true weapon or, as the next step, of banning them altogether?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The honourable member raises a question that was first raised in the House in November of last year by my colleague the member for Brantford (Mr. Neumann). He raised this matter with the Attorney General (Mr. Scott). It was with regard to an inquest in that community as a result of a fatality involving one of these replica guns.

I can say to the member for Durham East that my colleague the Attorney General has written to the federal Minister of Justice regarding the sale and distribution, which is the area in which the honourable member has expressed his concern. The government’s view is that this matter ought to be dealt with, in a sense, in the same national way as utilization of these replica weapons is dealt with, under the Criminal Code.

I ask my friend to refer himself back to Hansard, to the comments of the Attorney General. I will check with the Attorney General and forward to him, if he would like, a copy of the Attorney General’s letter to the Minister of Justice. I am given to understand that has been sent and we believe that to be the appropriate response.

PETITION

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wellington.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I hope all members will give their attention to the member for Wellington.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I have a petition, which reads as follows:

“To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

“We request the immediate establishment of a royal commission on the Workers’ Compensation Board.”

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: There is a fair amount of commotion and conversations. Are there any other members wishing to present petitions?

Hon. Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, before calling the order of the day, I just want -- if nothing else, in response to the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) -- to add a more cheerful note by wishing the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) a very happy 60th birthday.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES (CONTINUED)

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

Mr. Speaker: The member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry wishes to continue.

Mr. Villeneuve: It is always a pleasure to continue on such an important subject. As I said yesterday, the cart is at the wrong end of the horse and this motion should actually be debated in the standing committee on finance and economic affairs.

Avant trop longtemps -- je vois que le ministre du Développement du Nord (M. Fontaine) est encore ici; il n'était pas ici hier -- j’aimerais tout simplement le mettre au courant de certaines choses qui ont été dites au sujet de l’accord de libre-échange, au sujet de l’industrie forestière.

M. Paul Zorzetto, préfet de Mattice, directeur général de Claybelt Lumber Ltd. de Hearst, fait un commentaire qui se lit comme suit:

«Je tiens à vous faire part de mon enthousiasme au sujet de cet accord et j’attends avec impatience son application. En tout cas et en tout temps, j’étais d’accord avec la politique du gouvernement canadien sur le libre-échange, la stratégie des négociations, et maintenant je suis très heureux des résultats.»

Une voix: Un homme de Cochrane-Nord.

M. Villeneuve: Un homme de Cochrane-Nord.

En voici un autre de la part de M. Jean-Jacques Carrier, vice-président et contrôleur de Consolidated-Bathurst:

«Nous prévoyons que la croissance économique au Canada sera quelque peu supérieure à la suite de la signature de cet accord. Par conséquent, les dépenses de consommation seront supérieures, ce qui se traduira par une hausse de la demande pour les produits de pâtes et papier.»

C’est ce que dit Jean-Jacques Carrier, vice-président et contrôleur de Consolidated-Bathurst.

I am pleased to see the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) return today. When I adjourned the debate yesterday, I was quoting some very important Ontarians regarding their thoughts on free trade. I had just finished quoting Charlie Gracey, executive vice-president of the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association.

Dairy Farmers of Canada president Jim Waardenburg says as follows: “The dairy farmers’ organization supports the proposed free trade deal with the United States because it guarantees the Canadian government the right to include any dairy products on an import control list. Also, quotas as we have known them stay in place. Supply-managed commodities are protected. What more could the agricultural industry ask?”

Another very prominent Ontarian, Grant Smith, chairman of the Ontario Milk Marketing Board, says as follows: “As representative of the OMMB, I am cautiously optimistic. We must continue to work with the federal minister, the Honourable John Wise, to ensure that yoghurt and ice-cream are also included on the protected list from the US. We must maintain historic levels, no more and no less.”

Industry and government must work together. Those are the thoughts of Grant Smith.

A resident of my riding, Bert Sabourin from Monkland, president of the Egg Processors Association of Ontario, is very much in favour of free trade and would very much like to see free trade between provinces. I could go on.

The Minister of Agriculture and Food very recently made a statement. In part, it reads as follows: “The minister made it clear that he is not against an improved trading environment with Canada’s largest trading partner, but he added, ‘As far as I am concerned, a better trading environment should not be built by sacrificing the food processors of Ontario or, for that matter, our energy future, our auto industry or our sovereignty as a nation.’” Obviously, the Minister of Agriculture and Food has not read the free trade agreement, or statements like this would not be originating from him.

Mr. Wise stated as follows in a press release recently -- le ministre fédéral de l’Agriculture, I’honorable John Wise, soutient une fois de plus:

«Les agriculteurs bénéficieront de l'entente du libre-échange avec les États-Unis. Les critiques, a rappelé M. Wise dans une entrevue, disaient que nous ne pouvions pas faire inclure dans l’accord sur le libre-échange l’article du GATT qui protège les régies de commercialisation, mais nous l’avons fait.»

Supply-managed commodities are indeed protected, as I have just mentioned; so aquiculture is getting a fair shake. I am most intrigued, pursuant to a question to the Premier (Mr. Peterson) on December 15 last year, where he obtained some information pertaining to a $100-million loss by Ontario agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture and Food advised me that the report may very well be available. To this date, I am still awaiting the report. Is it the Informetrica Ltd. report from Ottawa that was alluded to today in question period?

Is it another report or is it pure speculation and scare-mongering tactics that this government is using? If indeed a report exists, I have requested this report from the Minister of Agriculture and Food and he has not produced it.

Additional prominent agriculturalists made the following statements:

Canadian Chicken Marketing Agency; Nelson Coyle, communications manager: “Chicken farmers can live with the increased quotas, which won’t have an overwhelming impact.” That is the chairman of the Canadian Chicken Marketing Agency.

The Canadian Broiler Hatching Egg Producers’ Association is likewise supportive of the free trade agreement.

The Canadian Pork Council; Martin Rice, executive secretary: “Our initial reaction is that, in the overall, the agreement is positive. It will take some time to assess some of the technical details, but the movement of meat, hygienic inspection, the phase-out of custom user fees and a dispute settling process that will save time and be final --these are all positive to the pork industry. While the industry supports an open trading environment, producers are very pleased that the right to future supply management, if required, is retained, because circumstances could change and it is important that that option remain open.”

These are very prominent Ontarians and Canadians speaking in favour of the free trade agreement which was signed last Saturday.

It is always intriguing that the Premier was offered an opportunity to debate the free trade agreement with the federal Minister of Finance. The Premier, for whatever his reasons, has said: “No thanks. I still maintain opposition to this, but I would rather not debate.” That sends a very clear message that somehow, somewhere this government and this Premier are now starting to realize that the corner they are painted into is getting smaller and smaller.

During the past period of time a number of myths regarding free trade have been perpetrated. At this time I would like to expound a bit on the fact that some of these myths are indeed myths and they were used to make political points at best.

Under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade rules, generally available social programs are not countervailable. The United States has already examined fishermen’s unemployment insurance benefits in past disputes and found that they are not countervailable. Under both GATT and

chapter 5 of the free trade agreement, both countries can impose a sales tax to raise revenue to fund government programs, provided it does not discriminate against imported foods; for example, if all goods consumed in Canada or a province are taxed equally. The federal and provincial governments have long imposed sales taxes which allowed Canada to finance a wide array of social services while maintaining competitive corporate and personal tax systems.

We heard a very good presentation by the member for Ottawa South (Mr. McGuinty) yesterday, all wrapped up in the Canadian flag as a former university professor, saying that we had sold our cultural industry down the drain. He was speaking simply to what was and has been in place and remains in place. As the Minister of Culture and Communications of Ontario (Ms. Munro) admitted recently in question period, the cultural industry was indeed hardly affected at all by the free trade agreement. However, the Premier and this government have not seen fit to change their position.

Under GATT, subsidies are recognized as legitimate ways to promote regional development, but countries should not use subsidies which injure other countries. Subsidies are not illegal, only subsidies that cause injuries.

That is most important. I represent a riding in eastern Ontario. A number of my colleagues represent ridings in northern Ontario. These are the have-not areas of the province, and if indeed this government or the federal government were not able to provide special assistance to these different regions, I would certainly not be in favour of a free trade agreement. However, this stays in place. Regional assistance can be provided, providing it simply does not cause injury to another country, and that is fair game.

Under existing United States and Canadian law, subsidies are countervailable by the importing nation only if they are not generally available and if the subsidized product materially injures a similar good in the importing country.

If a subsidy is found to be injurious, we can continue to subsidize if we want to, but our exports will be more expensive in the US market. The decision is ours.

The free trade agreement makes the threat of countervail even more remote.

Article 1904 creates a binational panel which will lessen the risk of politically motivated use of trade laws. The process created will be faster, limiting the ability of US competitors to use trade laws to cause uncertainty in the marketplace.

Article 1903 requires that changes to countervail and anti-dumping laws will not apply to the other country unless they are specifically made applicable to the other. Consultations are mandatory with the other party prior to implementation. The binational panel can also be asked to rule on whether the new law is compatible with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the objectives of the free trade agreement.

Again I emphasize, this government has used GATT decisions time and time again as an excuse to fight free trade. They are very distinct and different, and we must recognize the difference between a GATT ruling and the free trade agreement.

Cultural sovereignty; very important. Again, the member for Ottawa South made a very impassioned presentation yesterday. However,

article 2005 specifically indicates that, subject to four limited exceptions, nothing in the agreement affects Canada’s ability to pursue cultural policies. Our Minister of Citizenship (Mr. Phillips) again confirmed that in this Legislature, pursuant to a question from my colleague the member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland).

The exceptions primarily are commercial matters.

Article 401, the end of tariffs on musical instruments, cassettes, film, records, etc.;

article 1607, fair market value purchase in a forced divestiture of a cultural enterprise;

article 2006, copyright protection for cable retransmissions;

article 2007, the end of the printed-in-Canada requirement for eligible advertising expense deduction.

Those are the changes. I enjoyed listening to the member for Ottawa South, but really all it was was an impassioned speech, wrapped in the Canadian flag and stating that the status quo was very much the status quo as far as the cultural industry in Ontario and in Canada is concerned.

Are marketing boards at risk? That is a question that, throughout the election campaign, those of us who represented rural ridings were confronted with on a daily basis. I must tell members that I met on numerous occasions with the Honourable John Wise and with people from his office, and I was reassured on every occasion that marketing boards would not be at risk. However, the Premier, the Minister of Agriculture and Food, and indeed all the Liberal candidates who were running in the September 10 election kept saying, "You will see an end to marketing boards and the family farm and all the rest of it.”

The Minister of Agriculture and Food is still saying that. He had better get up-to-date, because indeed marketing boards are protected and I again will confirm it, as I have on several occasions during this presentation.

Article 710 codifies Canada’s existing GATT rights to maintain marketing boards and, I emphasize, create new ones.

Mr. Laughren: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: This is a fine speech that the member is making and I really think there should be a quorum here to hear it.

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts) ordered the bells rung.

The Acting Speaker: A quorum is now present, would the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry please continue?

Mr. Villeneuve: Canada retains the right to apply import restrictions on agricultural goods where these are necessary to ensure the operation of a domestic supply management or support program. Examples are ice-cream and yoghurt.

Article 706 sets out the increases in Canadian global import quotas on chicken, turkey, eggs, and increases which merely reflect the average levels of actual imports over the past five years.

This will eliminate a major handicap for wheat-based food processors while removing the existing tax on domestic bread and other wheat-based products. Two-price wheat was introduced at a time of higher world grain prices in order to stabilize domestic prices. With the collapse of the grain prices in the last few years, it has had the perverse effect of increasing consumer prices.

The Canadian trucking industry was concerned, and justifiably so. However, after the latter stages of the free trade agreement, I believe they can now sleep soundly. The services annex does not include transportation services. Like culture and social programs, the trucking industry is not affected by this free trade agreement.

Indeed, this happened towards the end of the negotiations when the trucking associations presented their concerns. This government could well have been doing that as well, but they were standing there, hooting and hollering, “We do not want a free trade agreement.” They were not thinking positively in any way, shape or form.

“Free trade in apparel and textiles will wipe out the Canadian industry.” That was being said time and time again during the electioneering leading to the September 10 provincial election. Who is afraid of whom? In fact, American fears of our highly competitive clothing manufacturers caused the US to demand a ceiling on the export growth potential of Canadian apparel made from third country fabrics.

A quota on such Canadian apparel exports has been set at a level six times above current trade levels, allowing Canadian apparel manufacturers to continue to increase their exports to the US while limiting American fears that Canadian imports will wipe out the US industry. A similar quota has been set for Canadian textiles made with foreign yarn.

Article 908 states that Canada’s long-time obligation under the agreement of an international energy program to increase oil exports during a period of short supply takes precedence over the free trade agreement provisions on proportional sharing in reductions.

Does the free trade agreement allow for wide open investment in Canada? A good question. This is what the experts who have studied this say.

Articles 1602 and 1607 outline Canada’s right to review significant direct acquisition proposals. Seventy-five per cent of the assets that are currently reviewable by Investment Canada will remain reviewable after the transition period.

Article 1603 recognizes Canada’s continuing right to negotiate product mandate, research and development and technology transfer requirements with prospective investors.

Article 1607 grandfathers all existing foreign investment restrictions, for example, in key sectors like communications, transportation, energy, cultural industries and the like.

Article 1602 recognizes the ability of the competition tribunal to review anticompetitive mergers and acquisitions. In various sectors -- for example, agriculture, procurement, trade-related investment measures -- the two countries have agreed to work towards multilateral liberalization in the coming round of GATT negotiations.

Again, I emphasize that I feel GATT is much more of a threat to us as a province and to us as a country than the free trade agreement. The free trade agreement is an opportunity. GATT rulings are what we will have to watch considerably closer.

Au sujet de l’agriculture, le commentaire suivant de la part de Rudy Le Cours est tiré de La Presse de Montréal du 9 octobre: «Un examen attentif des termes qui touchent l’agriculture dans l’accord de libre-échange permet de conclure que le Québec devrait maintenir sa balance commerciale favorable avec les États-Unis.»

Un gouvernement libéral au Québec, un gouvernement libéral en Ontario: un gouverne-ment libéral au Québec qui est très positif au sujet de l’accord de libre-échange, un gouvernement libéral en Ontario qui est très négatif, sans trop savoir pourquoi.

Voici un commentaire du premier ministre du Québec, l’honorable Robert Bourassa, tiré du Devoir du 20 octobre:

«Il n'y a rien dans l’accord qui remet en cause les pouvoirs du Québec sur la protection et la promotion de la culture. Dans ma brève conversation avec le premier ministre canadien, on n’a pas passé tous les points en revue, mais j’ai insisté sur le fait que l’accord ne devait affecter l’autonomie culturelle de la province de Québec.»

Aucun problème avec la culture.

Voici ce que dit Philippe de Gaspé Beaubien, président-directeur général de Télémedia, tiré du Journal de Montréal du 6 octobre:

«Je suis heureux qu’un accord ait été conclu. Le secteur de l’édition a été épargné puisque la publicité sera déductible d’impôt dans les magazines détenus à 80 pour cent par des intérêts canadiens. La seule concession qui a été faite, c’est que les Américains auront droit aux subsides postaux, comme nous.»

Le libre-échange, conclut M. Philippe de Gaspé Beaubien de Telemedia, sera peut-être l’occasion pour son groupe d’aller du côté américain, une position très positive.

Voici un commentaire de la part d’Alain Dubuc, tiré d’une rubrique de La Presse du 10 octobre 1987:

«Quand John Turner a commenté l’entente, on croyait entendre un député rural des années 50. Celui qui fut brièvement premier ministre a carrément affirmé, au mépris des faits, que le pacte de l’auto disparaîtrait, que la culture canadienne perdait toutes ses protections, etc.

«Pierre Marc Johnson, qui partage avec M. Turner l'honneur d’être le chef en perte de vitesse d’un parti en perte de vitesse, adopte la même approche, où l'excès verbal est inversement proportionnel à la maîtrise des dossiers.»

Voici encore une autre citation, tirée de La Presse du 30 octobre: «On comprend mal que les députés libéraux fédéraux, dont l’ancien ministre québécois des Finances, M. Raymond Garneau, ex-président d’une importante institution bancaire, puissent s'opposer à l’accord» du libre-échange

Ce qui suit est tiré du Journal de Montréal du 28 octobre: «Robert Bourassa a fustigé le chef néo-démocrate et le Toronto Star» -- on réalise, même au Québec, que le Toronto Star est impliqué, avec les libéraux ontariens – «pour leur opposition au libre-échange, signalant que ceux-ci devraient regarder au-delà de l’Ontario et constater ce que ça apporterait aux autres régions du pays, avant de dire que le Canada est à vendre avec cet accord.»

Je pourrais continuer indéfiniment. Nous avons des gens très nombreux qui n’ont pas eu peur de se prononcer en faveur de cet accord avec les États-Unis.

Voici un commentaire tiré d’un éditorial de La Presse du 8 octobre:

«Des le début, le Toronto Star a été un point de ralliement pour les adversaires du libre-échange, ce qui a toujours donné une saveur un peu ontarienne à ce point de vue. Sa réaction au projet d’accord avec les États-Unis était donc prévisible. Mais son négativisme, dans un éditorial en première page, est vraiment decevant....

«Le tableau de chasse du Toronto Star est maigre, ce qui me fait penser que le projet d’accord est plutôt bon.

«Allons, Toronto Star! Le Canada va de Victoria à Saint-Jean, non de Kenora à Cornwall, et le ciel ne nous tombera pas sur la tête en l’an 2000.»

Je pourrais continuer, mais je crois qu’on réalise tous qu'il y a des situations dont la province de l’Ontario bénéficierait pleinement, comme l’ont exprimé de nombreux gens qui n’ont pas eu peur simplement de le dire et de le redire. On essaie de convaincre mes collègues libéraux ici, mais ils semblent n'avoir aucune façon. Ils veulent tout simplement suivre, pas à pas, le premier ministre ontarien.

Free trade means greener pastures. The Canadian Cattlemen’s Association; Hugh Sharp, president, states that without a free trade deal, the cattle industry here in Ontario, and indeed in Canada, would likely be subject to countervail action, to surtaxes, as the hog industry is at present.

Canadian farmers export almost $3 billion in agricultural products to the United States and sought conditions which would make their access to the US market both more open and more secure. At the same time, they did not want to impair either existing marketing systems for dairy and poultry products or the right to implement new supply management programs and import controls in accordance with our international obligations.

The government thus had three objectives in the agricultural areas: to improve access to farm products, to make that access more secure and to preserve Canada’s agricultural policy instruments. The agreement meets all three objectives, as was stated initially by the Minister of Agriculture for Canada, the Honourable John Wise.

This is an important package of trade liberalizing measures. Agricultural products will benefit from the increased security of access flowing from the arrangements on the dispute settlement mechanism, and nothing in the agreement will in any way affect the right of the federal government and the provinces to introduce and maintain programs to protect and stabilize farm incomes.

The principal trade liberalizing elements agreed to in agriculture are:

Article 701, prohibition of export subsidies on bilateral trade. This marks the first time that any two governments have agreed to prohibitions on export subsidies in the agricultural sector and marks an important signal to other countries around the world.

Elimination of Canadian western grain transportation rail subsidies on exports to the United States shipped through Canadian west coast ports. The provision does not affect shipments through Thunder Bay or exports to third countries through west coast ports.

Articles 401 and 702, the phased elimination of all tariffs over a period of 10 years. Canada is allowed to restore temporarily tariffs on fresh fruits and vegetables for a 20-day period under depressed price conditions, in order to give Canadian horticulturalists an opportunity to adjust to more open trading conditions. This snapback provision applies only if the average acreage under cultivation for that product is constant or declining. Acreage converted from wine grape cultivation is not included in this calculation.

Mutual exemption from restrictions under meat import laws, thus ensuring free trade in beef, veal and pork. Canadian beef and veal producers have in the past found their exports limited as the US triggered its meat import restrictions or sought voluntary export restraints. Both countries have agreed to consult and take measures to avoid diversion, should either country apply its meat import laws against third countries.

The Canadian global import quotas on chicken, turkey and eggs have been set at average levels of actual imports over the past five years.

An exemption for Canada from any future quantitative import restrictions on products containing 10 per cent or less sugar. The US enjoys a waiver under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade to impose restrictions if imports are interfering with US price support programs. Without this exemption, further products could be included.

Rights and obligations, including

article 11 of GATT, are retained for all agricultural trade not specifically dealt with in the agreement. In other words, if we qualify under GATT, we qualify under the free trade agreement; indeed, the free trade agreement was based on the GATT restrictions. For example, Canadian dairy farmers will continue to benefit from supply-managed programs as they are not affected by the agreement and are consistent with Canada’s GATT obligations.

As a matter of fact, there is a gentleman who works there by the name of Réjean Galipeau, a native of St. Isidore de Prescott now living in Winchester. He is a champion. He is not an Ontario champion, not a Canadian champion and not a North American champion, but a world champion cheesemaker. In 1986, he won the world championship in Wisconsin, the dairy state of the United States.

This government would have probably told this gentleman, a champion cheesemaker: “Don’t go to the States. They will not give you a fair deal. Stay in Canada. You have won at the local fairs. That is good enough.” But for this young man it was not good enough and he became a world champion.

Mr. Wildman: You mentioned this yesterday.

Mr. Villeneuve: If the member for Algoma had a world champion in his riding, he would be proud of it too. I want to tell the world that I am very proud of him and we, as Canadians and as Ontarians, can continue to be at the top of the heap.

Mr. Wildman: Don’t be repetitive.

Mr. Villeneuve: I am not being repetitive. I am emphasizing very much in the same fashion as some of the Liberal candidates. Does the member for Algoma recall whether they were repetitive leading up to September 10? World championship cheese comes from Ault Foods in Winchester -- I emphasize that -- in the riding of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, and east Grenville.

Mr. Dietsch: We want to hang on to our world-class wine to go with the cheese.

Mr. Villeneuve: Again, I told the member for St. Catharines-Brock yesterday that the Liquor Control Board of Ontario has its hand in the hip pocket of the grape producers through the wine industry and does not want to let go. That is where the problem is. It is a GATT decision we have, not a free trade agreement problem. It is a GATT decision, and we are a signatory to it.

Mr. Wildman: It is all McKeough’s fault.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

M. Villeneuve: «Aucune région du Canada n’a plus à gagner dans l’accord que la province de l’Ontario. L’économie de cette province, c’est dans une large mesure construit sur un commerce avec les États-Unis, qui absorbent aujourd’hui plus de 90 pour cent de nos exportations. Comme plus des deux tiers de ces exportations proviennent du secteur de l’automobile, le gouvernement s’était fixé deux objectifs dans les négociations: préserver les avantages du pacte de l’automobile et élargir les possibilités de croissance de cette industrie. Ces deux objectifs ont été bel et bien réalisés.

Compte tenu de l’importance de l’industrie automobile pour les deux pays, un comité select sera établi et chargé de recommander des mesures de politiques gouvernementales et des initiatives privées visant à améliorer la compétitivité de ce secteur.

«L’élimination progressive des droits de douane au cours des 10 prochaines années permettra d’effectuer plus d’activités de transformation en Ontario. Les exportations ontariennes d’électricité seront mieux protégées. Cette province pourra continuer de compter sur un accès garanti au charbon américain pour ses aciéries et ses centrales thermiques et verra le marché américain s'ouvrir à notre uranium.

«Les agriculteurs ontariens, dont la production dépasse celle de toute autre province, bénéficieront d’un meilleur accès au marché américain. D’autre part, les intérêts des producteurs de produits laitiers, de produits avicoles et d’oeufs ont été sauvegardés. Les offices de commercialisation restent en place et la capacité de mettre en oeuvre, au besoin, de nouveaux programmes de gestion des approvisionnements et des restrictions à l’importation est maintenue.

«S’agissant de la bière, l’accord ne modifie aucunement les pratiques canadiennes en existence. L’industrie vinicole, de son côté, bénéficie d’un délai d’adaptation de sept ans avant de livrer concurrence à l’industrie américaine sur un pied d’égalité, une décision qui avait été prise par l'entente GATT.

«De nouvelles perspectives s’offrent également à l’industrie des services financiers. Les industries de services, qui emploient 70 pour cent de la population active au Canada et qui sont concentrées en Ontario, bénéficieront grandement d’un meilleur accès au marché américain pour leurs services et leur personnel.»

Quand nous apprenons que la Coopérative fédérée de Québec favorise l’accord de libre-échange, ça en dit long sur ce sujet pour les industries de transformation. Je ne veux pas me répéter, mais par contre, il faut se rappeler toujours que l’accord du libre-échange nous donne accès à une population de 250 millions, notre plus grand partenaire économique.

I am winding down. I have taken almost enough time but I want to touch on the energy sector prior to giving my place to one of my colleagues.

How does our energy fit into the trade deal? First, Canada is under no obligation to supply energy to the United States. Private energy producers can sell to whomever they want. Presumably many will take advantage of the impediment-free access to the US market envisaged in the deal. This will increase the cross-border flow of oil, gas and hydro sales, but the agreement does not create a continental energy market. It lifts the restrictions that were preventing one from developing.

Second, the Canadian government is not guaranteeing American access to our energy supplies. It is allowing them into the market on the same footing as Canadian buyers. Is there something wrong with supply and demand?

Finally, Ottawa is not giving up its control over Canadian energy supplies. The federal government still has the right to limit energy consumption for reasons of conservation, domestic price stabilization or short supply. The National Energy Board still has the power to ensure that Canadian energy companies offer their domestic customers at least as good a price as their foreign buyers.

The tax on energy departments can continue to offer incentives for oil and gas exploration and development in the north and offshore. In the agreement, Canada relinquishes the right to control the price of energy exports by government action. This means the government would not be able to implement a Canada-first policy insulating domestic consumers from the suffering of an energy-short world.

The actual allocation scheme would have to be worked out at the time of the emergency, but the trade negotiators will draw up a formula for calculating how much energy the US would be eligible to buy. The American proportion of the available supply would be based on its purchases as a percentage of Canada’s entire energy pool, both production and proven reserves, for the 36 months prior to cutbacks.

Alberta and Saskatchewan oil producers are for the most part thrilled with the plan. To them it means a bigger, richer, more stable market for their goods. It holds out the promise of a major increase in the $10 billion worth of oil, gas, electricity and uranium Canada exports to the US annually.

Eastern consumers are understandably uneasy. After being told for a decade by Ottawa that energy self-sufficiency is Canada’s best insurance policy in an uncertain world, they are being asked to give up their protection; and after assuming for years that the west’s oil and gas were part of their birthright, they are being asked to sell their inheritance. This is, of course, not the case.

J’aimerais simplement prononcer quelques mots au sujet d’un reportage fait dans Le Droit du 12 novembre 1987. C’est au sujet de l’industrie vinicole en Ontario:

«Si le litige n’est pas résolu entre les parties impliquées à la date indiquée, le jugement devrait alors, nous dit-on, être rendu public. S’il faut se fier à la tradition, disons que le Canada a la réputation d’être respectueux du traité du GATT.

«La Communauté économique européenne ne digère pas les pratiques commerciales du Canada», et de l’Ontario, «en matière de vente de vins, d’alcools et de bières importés car les régies provinciales limitent l’accès de ces produits et ont une politique de prix qui avantage les producteurs canadiens (c’est du moins le cas de l’Ontario, du Québec et de la Colombie britannique).

«Quand on sait, par exemple, que la majoration de prix (sous forme de taxes) est de plus de 60 pour cent en moyenne au pays pour les vins importés, on comprend facilement l’indignation des producteurs européens qui ont fait pression pour forcer la CEE à réclamer l’arbitrage du GATT.

«Le mot arbitrage est d’ailleurs bien choisi car un jugement rendu par le GATT n’a aucune valeur coercitive. Toutefois, un pays qui ferait fi d’un tel jugement s’expose à des représailles commerciales.

«Dans le cas de la CEE, le Canada accuse les pays membres de subventionner leur secteur agricole d’une façon si généreuse que nos producteurs de l’Ouest et du Sud de l’Ouest n'ont pas les moyens de concurrencer sur le marché européen. Lors du récent voyage de M. Mitterrand au Canada, nos producteurs de la Saskatchewan ont eu l'occasion de l’apostropher sur la question, mais le président de la France est si habile à jongler avec les mots que tout ce beau monde se gratte encore la tête pour savoir» ce qu’il a bel et bien dit.

«En ce qui concerne l’industrie de la bière, sachant qu’elle a été exclue du pacte canado-americain sur le libre-échange, il y a lieu de croire» --

The Acting Speaker: I am sure the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry will be getting to his point immediately.

Mr. Villeneuve: Very shortly. I am on the point of free trade, Madam Speaker, continuously.

Mr. Laughren: A heroic assumption, though.

Mr. Villeneuve: I understand the member for St. Catharines-Brock (Mr. Dietsch) has a little difficulty in accepting some of the things this government is to blame for, and I really do not blame him for getting up on a point of order, because there are things that are just a little bit itchy. However, that is understandable.

Mr. Dietsch: Just stick to the point.

Mr. Laughren: Why should he stick to the point when Sterling Campbell never does?

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Villeneuve: I will not touch that one, Madam Speaker.

«Ainsi, faut-il se demander comment Ottawa s'y prendra pour convaincre une province, comme l’Ontario par exemple, d’adopter des mesures qui pourraient inévitablement pousser à la faillite ses producteurs de vin du Niagara, de même que nombre de vignerons de la même région?

«Et que dire maintenant des quelque $670 millions de profits que la Régie des alcools de l’Ontario verse par année (1987-1988) dans les coffres de» la province de l’Ontario?

«En réduisant sa part de profits sur le vin importé (qui est de 66 pour cent),» les deux tiers, Madame la Présidente, «la régie aurait tout de même un manque à gagner qu'une consommation accrue, à cause de prix plus alléchants pour le consommateur, ne pourrait sûrement combler. Le gouvernement d’Ottawa est-il disposé à combler la différence?» La question se pose toujours.

«On voit donc que ce jugement du GATT ne peut donner lieu à des changements précipités dans notre politique canadienne de commercialisation des vins, des alcools et de la bière.»

In summation, I am a member of the standing committee on finance and economic affairs. I enjoyed participating in this debate. However, the timing was totally wrong. This motion, motion 8, had no business in this Legislature until the committee on finance and economic affairs had a chance to travel throughout the province and receive unfettered input --

Mr. Miller: That is your opinion; that is personal.

Mr. Villeneuve: That is not personal. That is the way this Legislature always operated until 94 members of the Liberal organization joined it. All of a sudden it became, “We do as we please; thank you.” That is exactly the way things are, no respect at all for the opportunity --

Mr. Callahan: He is in summation. Let’s get on with it.

Mr. Miller: For 42 years it was carried out by the other side; the shoe was on the other foot.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry has the floor. Thank you very much.

Mr. Villeneuve: I know the Liberal members do not like to hear the truth put to them in such a straightforward manner, and I really do not blame them because there are many times when, I am sure, they would like to tell their cabinet members and their Premier the way they really think about this. However, they know they have to toe the party line. I see them and they are doing it. I guess I understand t