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

December 16, 1987

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L024 - Wed 16 Dec 1987 / Mer 16 déc 1987

SPEAKER’S RULINGS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

UNEMPLOYMENT

STUDENTS AGAINST DRUNK DRIVING

ERNEST CHARLES DRURY

RETAIL STORE HOURS

HIGHWAY 93

STOP ACCIDENT FATALITIES EVERYWHERE

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

GEORGE TAYLOR FULFORD

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

VOTER IDENTIFICATION

TRUSTEE REPRESENTATION

SMALL BUSINESS

FARM IMPLEMENTS

RESPONSES

VOTER IDENTIFICATION

RECENSEMENT ÉLECTORAL

TRUSTEE REPRESENTATION

FARM IMPLEMENTS

SMALL BUSINESS

FARM IMPLEMENTS

TRUSTEE REPRESENTATION

VOTER IDENTIFICATION

ORAL QUESTIONS

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

HOURS OF WORK

EDUCATION FUNDING

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

PROJECT 3000

HEALTH SERVICES

BLOOD TRANSFUSION SERVICE

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

PHYSIOTHERAPISTS’ FEES

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS

HOUSING FOR THE DISABLED

NORTHERN ONTARIO

PETITIONS

NATUROPATHY

CANADIAN GYPSUM CO.

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EDUCATION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

FARM IMPLEMENTS ACT

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL AMENDMENT ACT

ELECTION FINANCES AMENDMENT ACT

ENERGY EFFICIENCY ACT

POLLS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES (CONTINUED)

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

Prayers.

SPEAKER’S RULINGS

Mr. Speaker: I would like to inform all members that on Monday last the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) brought to my attention two matters which I undertook to examine and report to the House on.

On the first matter, the member brought to my attention and to the attention of the House the fact that the publishing firm of Carswell is offering a service to the public which it calls the Ontario Legislative Digest Service. The honourable member was kind enough to send me a copy of this brochure.

On examination, I could find no problem with this service. Basically, this company is using public information and collating it in a way that might prove useful to some members of the general public. I could not find that the service infringed upon the right of honourable members or that it made use of the Legislative Assembly’s publications in any untoward way.

On the second matter, the member for Oshawa seemed to perceive a problem with the fact that the honourable the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) was the object of an allegation of conflict of interest made by another honourable member and at the same time was carrying a bill dealing with conflict of interest before a standing committee of this House.

Traditionally, it has not been the role of Speakers to determine, first of all, matters of conflict of interest. Second, the alleged conflict of interest has been referred to the interim commissioner and I am certain that it is being properly addressed there. Third, the bill in question has been referred by this House to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly and, therefore, any matters of order should be brought to the attention of the committee at this point in the process.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Allen: In recent years, many of our communities have been afflicted by plant closures of one kind or another. There have been problems in issues of unemployment, sometimes related to plant closures and sometimes not. We have seen our responses to those crisis situations take a very ad hoc form as now a federal program, now a provincial program, or some local action is brought into play in response to the critical needs of the unemployed, their families, their needs for retraining, for reorientation and for the support services that are necessary to maintain them through difficult times.

In looking at my own community of Hamilton, one can identify that ad hockery, sometimes ingenious, certainly supported and worked on by institutions ranging from the labour council through to the chamber of commerce.

Surely it is time in our communities for us to develop institutions of community economic adjustment or economic development which would involve all of the agencies that are impacted and that can possibly serve a useful role in helping reorient workers’ lives, helping them establish themselves on a new basis, helping to re-equip and redevelop factories that are no longer in use and, overall, giving a new thrust to a community that tackles its own problems, but with the support of both the federal and provincial governments.

I issue this comment as a statement and also an alert in a time of critical need.

STUDENTS AGAINST DRUNK DRIVING

Mr. Pollock: I ask all members of this assembly to join with me in welcoming a group of students from Centre Hastings Secondary School in Madoc. These students are members of a Students Against Drunk Driving chapter, commonly known as SADD. They received a cheque for $500 last Friday from Mr. Lefebvre of the Ministry of the Attorney General for being one of the winners of the “Only you can stop drinking and driving” decal contest.

Present today in the gallery are -- and I would ask them to please stand and be recognized -- Diane Stiles, chairperson; Karen Wiggins, vice-chairperson; Sarah Coviello, student council president; Michael Brenan, Linda Carman, Bonnie Baumhour, Heather White, Kim Phillips, Paula Foley, Linda Stiles, Alice Nickerson, and their teacher, Mrs. Sheila Barry. Please give this group a real Queen’s Park welcome.

ERNEST CHARLES DRURY

Mr. Owen: In May 1959, I wrote my last law exam and the next day commenced the practice of law in Barrie, the county seat for Simcoe. There I soon met the sheriff and registrar of the courts for Simcoe county. Notwithstanding the age difference, he befriended the young lawyer with warmth and sound advice. His name -- Ernest Charles Drury, the Premier of Ontario from 1919 to 1923.

The former Premier had an eloquence of speech in a Churchillian fashion. He always displayed kindness and gentlemanliness to even the worst criminal appearing before the courts. His style was grand; his spirit was gentle.

When the United Farmers of Ontario won the election of 1919, they had no leader. After a number of others declined, Mr. Drury finally accepted the responsibility. In his four years of government, Mr. Drury achieved major agrarian reforms. Much of Ontario’s reforestation, reclaiming wasted lands, was initiated. Social reform legislation such as mothers’ allowance was introduced.

How has Ontario honoured Mr. Drury? He would be pleased that a school for the deaf in Milton bears his name. However, here at Queen’s Park I have searched for a building with his name. I have found the names of Macdonald, Mowat, Whitney, Hearst, Ferguson, Hepburn, Frost, Drew -- all former premiers. When will we similarly honour Ernest Drury?

13 40

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Philip: A number of members of this House will be familiar with the document I am holding. In particular, the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) will be familiar with this document, since she is a signatory to it. It is the report of the select committee on retail store hours. The select committee on retail store hours was established by the Liberal government during the third session of the 33rd Parliament.

The report supports the principle of a common pause day in Ontario. The Solicitor General will recall evidence before the committee that large mall owners invariably have in their lease agreements a clause requiring merchants to stay open during the days and hours established by the mall.

In my riding, Trilea Centres Inc., owners of Shoppers World Albion, has delivered letters to each of the merchants telling them that their businesses must be open on Sunday, December 27. Similar letters have been sent to merchants in Northgate mall in the city of North Bay.

Merchants are angry at this government for its flip-flop in policy, for its ignoring of recommendations of the select committee, the select committee of which the Solicitor General was a member; which recommendations, indeed, she signed herself.

I ask the Solicitor General and the members of the Peterson government what action they are going to take to protect the rights of those merchants who do not want to remain open on Sunday, December 27, or, indeed, on subsequent Sundays in other years? Why are they so against their right of choice? I ask what action are they going to take to protect their rights?

HIGHWAY 93

Mr. McLean: My statement is for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. O’Neil) and the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton).

In the past, I wrote to them and their predecessors concerning the highway that runs through my riding of Simcoe East. I was told that the matter would be given serious consideration. To date, nothing has happened. I would like to bring this matter to their attention again.

Charles Drury was appointed as the Premier’s first Minister of Agriculture in 1888. His son, E. C. Drury, served as Premier of Ontario from 1919 to 1923, along with the father of the present Treasurer of Ontario and Minister of Economics (Mr. R. F. Nixon). The Treasurer’s father served in the same cabinet with Mr. Drury at the time. At present, Robert Drury is currently reeve of Oro township. He is a grandson of E. C. Drury.

My colleague the member for Simcoe Centre (Mr. Owen) wants to know how to honour him, and I can tell the government how it can be done.

As the government can see, this area is steeped in history. I believe the Minister of Transportation and the Minister of Tourism and Recreation can honour this history by designating Highway 93 as a heritage highway in 1988, which is the 100th anniversary of Charles Drury’s appointment as Ontario’s first Minister of Agriculture.

As the Minister of Tourism and Recreation and his colleague will know, their ministries have been approached by members of the county council in the past for Highway 93 to be designated as a heritage highway. Simcoe county supports it, the municipalities support it, I support it and I understand that my colleague the member for Simcoe Centre would also support it.

STOP ACCIDENT FATALITIES EVERYWHERE

Mrs. Fawcett: I would like to congratulate the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) on the fine efforts of the reduce impaired driving everywhere program.

Today, I would like to draw to the attention of the members of this House a new initiative called Stop Accident Fatalities Everywhere. SAFE was recently launched by the community of Caledon and the Ontario Provincial Police detachment there.

Drivers who want to participate in the program drive with their headlights on during daylight hours. Officers watch for motorists who are driving at the speed limit, are wearing seatbelts, are obeying the rules of the road, are displaying good, defensive driving techniques and are displaying at least one courtesy, such as stopping to allow a pedestrian to cross.

Once stopped, the driver is presented with a SAFE award certificate and given a SAFE bumper sticker. Community organizations, private residents and corporations were contacted for assistance. Many businesses provided financial support, while some citizens lent their expertise.

These constituents in the riding of the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs, the member for Dufferin-Peel (Mrs. Wilson), are to be congratulated for such a positive driving program.

I wish to make special recognition of Constable Evelyn McLean, who spearheaded the program and developed the idea with the help of the community.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Mrs. Grier: Today, in the Supreme Court of Ontario, Energy Probe is arguing that the Environmental Assessment Act should be applied to the construction and operation of the tritium removal plant in Darlington.

Opposing Energy Probe in court is not just a lawyer for Ontario Hydro but a lawyer from the Ministry of the Environment. We have the spectacle of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) in the outrageous position of arguing against, instead of for, an environmental assessment.

The tritium removal plant may be operating shortly, having been subjected to no public hearings. If Ontario Hydro gets away with this failure to abide by the Environmental Assessment Act, helped along by the Minister of the Environment, can other Ontario Hydro facilities be far behind?

Mr. Runciman: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to pay tribute to a former member of the assembly.

Mr. Speaker: Is there agreement?

Agreed to.

GEORGE TAYLOR FULFORD

Mr. Runciman: I would like to draw the members’ attention to the passing in Brockville on Tuesday of George Taylor Fulford, Liberal representative for Leeds in this House from 1934 to 1937, the last Liberal to represent the riding, by the way, although admittedly they came close a few months ago.

George had the distinction of serving his constituents not only in the Legislature but also in the House of Commons on two occasions, between 1940 and 1953, for a period of nine years.

Mr. Fulford entered the political arena when he was 21, as a member of Brockville’s municipal council. During his tenure as a member of this assembly, he was instrumental in the development of the four-lane highway between Brockville and Long Beach.

Mr. Fulford had the unique distinction of being both a dedicated Liberal and a loyal Conservative in his lifetime. In the early 1970s, Mr. Fulford, along with the late Tom Cossitt and most of the executive of the Leeds Liberal Association, joined the Conservative Party. He remained a good supporter of the Ontario Conservative Party.

Mr. Fulford was a well-known philanthropist and I believe the University of Toronto, from which he graduated in 1924, was the beneficiary of his and his family’s generosity. Many institutions and parks in eastern Ontario exist today as a result of his interest and financial aid.

He was a name in the sports life of Ontario for many years, perhaps best known for the semi-pro baseball and hockey teams he sponsored. One, the Brockville Magedomas, was a contender for the Allan Cup.

Mr. Fulford was the retired head of the family’s patent medicine company which now has its headquarters in Toronto. Perhaps one of that company’s best-known products was “Pink Pills for Pale People.”

I thank the members of this House for joining me in expressing condolences to the family and in paying tribute to the contributions Mr. Fulford made to this province and to this country.

Mr. Breaugh: I would like to offer, on behalf of our caucus, our condolences to the family. The Fulford name is well-known throughout eastern Ontario. He had a very distinguished political career in addition to many other things. He was one of the few people who represented his constituency at the municipal level, the provincial level and the federal level. That is quite an accomplishment. We would like to offer our respects to the family and pay tribute to a very fine resident of eastern Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I would like to join my friends the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) and the member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Runciman) in this tribute to the late George Fulford, a man with whom my grandfather sat in this assembly in the period of the 1934-37 assembly.

The member for Leeds-Grenville properly draws attention to the late Mr. Fulford’s political and business interests. I well remember as a youngster growing up listening to my grandfather talk about his friend in Brockville who had by then changed his political affiliation, but who was always mentioned along with the phrase “Pink Pills for Pale People.”

I know the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) has some stories as well because his father sat with George Fulford. As the member for Leeds-Grenville has pointed out, he played a very important role in the political life of Leeds county. I well remember visiting that beautiful home in Brockville, one of the most spectacular examples of turn-of-the-century architecture that I think could be found anywhere in Ontario.

When the member speaks about this former member’s involvement, I am reminded about those days when Brockville was, as I think the Treasurer will agree, a hotbed of Liberalism, because there were some very prominent senators who used to maintain some very active quarters in that city, but I am also reminded of the contribution he made at the federal level, as well as his municipal experience.

On behalf of the government and on behalf of the Liberal Party, we want to pay tribute to Mr. Fulford for the contribution he made, which was not inconsiderable over the many years in which he played a very important role in the public life of this province.

Mr. Speaker: On behalf of all the members of the assembly, I will make certain that your words of sympathy are sent to the Fulford family as soon as Hansard is printed.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

VOTER IDENTIFICATION

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I will be introducing legislation later today to establish a new system of voter identification for municipal and school board elections. I would like to take a few minutes now to tell the Legislature about the new system, which I intend to have in place in time for the 1988 municipal elections.

The current door-to-door enumeration system conducted in the fall before municipal elections has a number of weaknesses that are of concern to me and to my colleagues, the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Grandmaître) and the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward).

There has traditionally been a problem with accuracy. In some cases, people have been left off the voters’ list. In others, information that appears on the list has been inaccurate.

To address these concerns, I intend to introduce a bill that will replace the current door-to-door enumeration with a bilingual questionnaire, to be mailed out and returned in the spring.

This will have a number of advantages over the old system. It will increase the accuracy and completeness of voters’ lists. It will eliminate the problems encountered by enumerators asking potential voters personal questions. It will meet our concerns that electors be identified as accurately as possible on the basis of language rights, and it will provide timely population and electoral data for determining municipal election representation and the size and the composition of school boards.

Because voter identification under the new system will take place in the spring rather than in the fall, voters will have more time and increased opportunities to ensure that information about them on the voters’ list is correct.

I would like to take a minute to describe the voter identification process as it would occur under the new system.

At the beginning of May in each election year, a bilingual questionnaire, including instructions on how to fill it out, will be mailed directly to all households and other premises by the Ministry of Revenue. All persons will be required to return these forms on or before a day designated by the Minister of Revenue, which will be approximately May 15.

During a six-week follow-up period, enumerators will visit households which have not yet returned their questionnaires. The enumerators will collect the forms or assist individuals in completing them.

If no return is filed even after this follow-up, the electoral status of an individual will be based on the ownership or tenancy data as indicated on the assessment roll.

A preliminary list of electors will be produced by the Ministry of Revenue and sent to the municipal clerks by July 31. A voter identification notice showing the electoral status of each person will be mailed to every household by the Ministry of Revenue by August 31. People will again have the opportunity to make changes to the list during the revision period, which begins on the first Tuesday in September and ends on the Monday 28 days before voting day.

Following the revision period, the municipal clerk will make the necessary changes to the preliminary list of electors. The revised list will then become the voters’ list. However, even at this stage a voter who has been missed can get a certificate of eligibility from the clerk.

In nonelection years, the list will be continuously updated through several mechanisms, such as changes of ownership and the assessment roll.

In addition to the extensive safeguards built into the system, the government plans further measures to ensure that no one who wants to vote is left off the list.

Without an accurate and efficient method of identifying voters, the democratic system cannot function properly. The system I have outlined is another step towards one of my ministry’s most important goals: strong, accountable local government across Ontario.

TRUSTEE REPRESENTATION

Hon. Mr. Ward: Later today I will be introducing a bill to change the method of the apportionment of trustee representation on Ontario school boards.

The bill replaces residential and farm assessment data with population data for determining the number of members on a board for each electoral group. This bill also amends parts of the French-language governance legislation, or Bill 75, to remove the dependence on student enrolment data for determining representation. With enumeration data available under the permanent voters’ list proposal, this mechanism is no longer necessary. However, the minimum guarantee of three members for minority-language governance is preserved.

Because of the unique two-tiered structure in Metropolitan Toronto, public boards in Metro are not covered at this time. Amendments to legislation will be introduced after the boards’ proposals for implementing the principles of this bill have been analysed.

At the present time, Ontario is the only province in Canada that has trustee apportionment based on assessment rather than on population. The change will make Ontario conform with current practice across Canada with respect to municipal, provincial and federal elections, all of which are based on representation by population.

This bill is the result of the work of the Joint Committee on Trustee Distribution, which was composed of representatives of the Ontario School Trustees’ Council and the Ministry of Education. In undertaking its work, the joint committee studied a wide variety of submissions and consulted with trustee and parents’ groups, provincial municipal associations, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the Ministry of Revenue.

I am pleased to inform the members that the report of the joint committee, upon which these amendments have been based, was approved unanimously by the presidents of each of the five provincial trustee associations of Ontario.

SMALL BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I am pleased to table today The State of Small Business, 1987, the report of the committee of parliamentary assistants for small business. This is the second annual report on small business presented by the committee, which is chaired by my parliamentary assistant, the member for Guelph (Mr. Ferraro).

The State of Small Business report expresses the committee’s vision of Ontario small business, a vision of creativity and drive. In its report the committee has identified top priorities for small business in the next few months: namely, tax reform and new measures in equity financing. I look forward to working with them on these issues.

This document is an excellent source of facts on small business. I know that it will be very useful to members, the business community and those who study and report on this vital sector of our economy.

This year’s report highlights the dynamic growth of Ontario small business. From 1978 to 1984, over half a million jobs were created by business starts in this province. The new report shows how important it is that those firms continue to succeed and grow. Less than five per cent of the firms employing fewer than 20 people in 1976 grew into medium-sized businesses by 1984, yet they account for 46 per cent of all new jobs created.

The amazing vitality of Ontario’s small business sector is demonstrated in the startup of new companies through the new ventures program. New ventures, a Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology program operated in partnership with private lenders, has assisted the startup of over 4,000 young firms in a little over a year, stimulating over $50 million of new financing. These new firms will bring enormous returns to the province in jobs, wealth and innovation.

We all know that starting and running a successful business is not a simple task. We still have an underdeveloped risk capital market in which some young and growing companies are starved for equity investment. Too many people are starting companies without a solid base of skills or without the market research they need to develop a credible business plan. We are working with Ontario entrepreneurs on these issues.

The report makes recommendations that merit serious consideration. Among them is a proposal to include small business in economic impact statements that accompany cabinet submissions on issues affecting small business.

The committee has also recommended that the government appoint a private sector advisory committee on small business to work with my ministry and the committee.

I am pleased to announce that we are reappointing the member for Guelph as Ontario’s small business advocate. We are also appointing a committee of seven parliamentary assistants to work with him.

The member for Guelph and all members of his committee deserve thanks for their thorough work in the past year, and I congratulate them on the presentation of this report.

FARM IMPLEMENTS

Hon. Mr. Riddell: We always leave the best till the last.

Later today I will be tabling for first reading the proposed Farm Implements Act.

As the members of the House know, farming continues to be a capital intensive industry requiring Ontario farmers to make considerable investments in farm machinery. This new act has been developed in response to long-standing requests made by farmers and the retail equipment sector to develop standards for the industry covering the sales, service, warranty and safety of farm equipment.

This act would replace the voluntary certification program which was based on the farm machinery code. Support for his voluntary program, which was introduced in 1980, has diminished in recent years.

The new act calls for a registration system for distributors and dealers, as well as standardized sales contracts, establishment of minimum warranties and guarantees for the availability of parts.

Also included in the act are provisions to return equipment that fails to perform to manufacturers’ specifications, supervision of safety measures and provision for buyback agreements between distributors and dealers.

The Farm Implements Act would be administered by a board consisting of representatives of machinery manufacturers, farm groups, wholesalers, retail dealers and individual farmers. The board would also be authorized to mediate disputes between farmers and the equipment industry.

This legislation fulfils yet another election promise, and I urge the House to pass this legislation to standardize the practices of Ontario’s retail and wholesale farm machinery sector and provide consumer protection for our farmers.

RESPONSES

VOTER IDENTIFICATION

Mr. Breaugh: I would like to respond briefly to the statement made by the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) on what is now called voter identification, which always has been known as enumeration. I do not know why we need the new title, but we now have one.

Almost anything would be an improvement, and I think that is a given. Most of us are amused when we read the stories in every election of the dogs, the pickup trucks, the tombstones that make their way on to the voters’ lists. Anything that improves upon that situation is indeed welcome.

I am an advocate of a permanent, established voters list for all three levels of government, and I think we are generally moving in that direction.

I see a couple of problem areas that have to be resolved. The first major one is that the computers in the Ministry of Revenue will have to do the job right at first crack for the first time in their history. That is highly unlikely to happen, but we should always give it another chance.

The second one is that basically there is a component part of this which is very much like the old on-the-street enumeration. That has always been the most difficult part of the process, and it is complicated in a modern society by the fact that we do have people who speak many languages and people who are not at home in the same way they traditionally have been. So we can see a couple of areas where it is going to be difficult.

I certainly hope that it would be a first step in establishing a permanent voters’ list that would be suitable for use in all forms of general elections. It is not going to be an easy task. I do not want to make the unfortunate prediction that this will be all screwed up by late spring. I hope it will not be and I wish the minister well in his endeavours, but it involves more than one ministry doing the job right. Having watched governments function for some time around here, it will be a first if this happens.

RECENSEMENT ÉLECTORAL

Mlle Martel: Je voudrais dire quelques mots au ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones (M. Grandmaître) à propos de l’annonce faite par son collègue cet après-midi. Je voudrais le féliciter d’avoir accepté les principes énoncés par l’Association des enseignantes et des enseignants franco-ontariens à propos du recensement électoral. J’espère bien qu'il va faire une campagne publicitaire avant le recensement pour en aviser le public et pour encourager le public à remplir complètement le questionnaire.

Deuxièmement, je sais bien que les changements annoncés cet après-midi vont avoir un grand effet sur l’éducation francophone en Ontario, c’est-à-dire sur les fonds visant l’éducation, avec le nombre des écoles francophones, avec les étudiants aux écoles francophones et, finalement, avec les étudiants francophones admis aux écoles francophones.

Je voudrais lui dire que j’espère que le porte-à-porte fait après le questionnaire va être fait avec le plus de soin et le plus de sensitivité possible envers les francophones.

TRUSTEE REPRESENTATION

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Just a few words on the last fill-in, last-minute legislation by the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) to include school boards, finally, in this whole process. I am glad he got around to doing it, except of course for Metropolitan Toronto, where this is not going to be the case for the coming election. We are going to have the situation across the province where we are actually going to have trustees elected in wards with boundaries different from those the councillors will be elected in.

If one can think of the kind of confusion there already is at the municipal level with all the various positions that are elected, the extra problems that are going to be there because of that, whether it is in Sault Ste. Marie or the city of Toronto, are enormous. I wish he had thought this out well in advance instead of bringing it in at the last minute to fill in a gap that he has left.

FARM IMPLEMENTS

Mr. Wildman: Just a brief comment on the announcement by the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) of the introduction of the Farm Implements Act. I welcome this announcement. The comment by the minister that the voluntary program has lost support is certainly an understatement. It never really worked and I am glad the minister is finally implementing my bill, which I first introduced in 1977 and reintroduced many times ever since.

Hopefully this will resolve the problems of service and living up to warranties and, particularly, making parts available when they are needed, because it seems that major breakdowns occur just when machines are needed at seeding time or at harvest and the parts so often are not available.

Thank goodness the minister has finally agreed to my legislation.

SMALL BUSINESS

Mr. Sterling: : I would like to respond briefly to the statement by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter) with regard to the report, The State of Small Business. I think the greatest difference between this year’s and last year’s annual reports is that this time it is red on white and last year it was white on red.

For a cost of $88,000 to the Ontario taxpayers, we have had eight parliamentary assistants produce this report. I think it is most noteworthy to look on page 80 of the report, where it says, “The powerful economic recovery in Ontario...has been rather uneven. The northern and eastern parts of the province have not had an easy time of it.” Then it says, “This is why the government has directed so many programs, especially financial...at helping northerners establish new businesses.”

It does not even mention eastern Ontario. It is obvious that this government does not care one hoot about eastern Ontario and development in that area. It is about time it spent a little time considering that eastern Ontario, as well as northern Ontario, has a tough time of it.

Notwithstanding that, we have confidence that the small business community can overcome this small business committee.

FARM IMPLEMENTS

Mr. Villeneuve: I too want to comment briefly on the announcement today by the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) on the Farm Implements Act. Yes, it is a good idea to standardize sales contracts and to bring the playing field level, particularly when it applies to our farmers and our farm implement dealers.

However, the big problem is that farmers must be able to afford to buy some equipment. Our cash crop producers and our grain producers, in particular, over the last three years, have suffered a one-third reduction in their gross farm income.

This government promised to double the budget in relation to agriculture. It has brought it up by less than one half of one per cent. That is not a promise that was kept by this government or this minister.

This government has placed agriculture at a very low profile at the cabinet level, and I believe it is a shame. Yes, we must have standard sales contracts and what have you, but farmers must be able to afford to purchase equipment, and right now I am wondering whether they can or not.

TRUSTEE REPRESENTATION

Mr. Jackson: Our party wishes to comment on the announcement today of the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) about the changes in the apportionment of trustee representation in Ontario.

It is important to note that it was the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) who assured this House that by fast-tracking Bill 29 there would be no problems. Yet within a week and a half of that statement, we now have the Minister of Education rising to tell us, “That is fine, but we will be unable to resolve matters with respect to trustee representation within that same jurisdiction.” In fact, we are not even getting a clear statement as to when those matters for the world’s largest trustee-represented area will be resolved.

Our party will be anxious to know if this legislation, of which we do not have a copy in front of us, will be sent to committee to ensure that all members of this House are able to consult widely with their own boards and to ensure that certain matters have been protected in their own jurisdictions.

First of all, we will want to consider the impact on minority-language governance to ensure that appropriate levels of representation have been maintained and honoured. We will be anxious to see the government’s position and whether this will go to committee and enable the trustees, educators and ratepayers to provide further and final input.

VOTER IDENTIFICATION

Mr. McCague: I would like to comment briefly on the statement made by the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) today. As has been mentioned, we all welcome anything that can be done to get a better voters’ list at the time of elections.

It seems that a lot of the cause of this is the difficulty that people have in answering a question about their language or religion. However, I think an education system will help greatly, and that is the part of it that must be emphasized, because I see this as being rather confusing to the average taxpayer, the average citizen of the province, and therefore the education part at the very start is going to be very important.

We will pledge our party’s support to the minister in accomplishing a permanent voters’ list in the near future.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. B. Rae: I would like to ask a question to the Premier. On October 7, 1987, after one of the earliest premiers’ conferences -- I think the first premiers’ conference after the announcement of the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States -- the Premier was quoted in the Toronto Star of October 7 as follows:

“Although he is ready to take

part in a ‘national debate’ about it, he said he plans no concrete action to try to stop it. ‘I would never work to undermine my colleagues or the Prime Minister,’ Peterson said.”

At that same time, the Premier also said he did not think it was a good idea or, to quote his words, “a hell of a good idea” to have a resolution from the Legislature condemning the deal. Apparently, he has changed his mind on that.

Yesterday the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) described an assertion that the agreement fell mainly within the federal jurisdiction and an assertion that the federal government had the right to sign the deal unilaterally, as “insensitive, confrontational, misleading and at worst, simply wrong.”

I think we are entitled to know who is speaking now for the government of Ontario and just what the government of Ontario intends to do to stop the deal.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. B. Rae: My question to the Premier is this: is it his view that the federal government has the constitutional power to go ahead with this deal? And if it is his view that they do not, which is the view I heard clearly expressed yesterday by the Attorney General, surely we are entitled to know just what he is going to do --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Premier.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We have answered that question on many occasions. I could answer and explain some of the quotes that he pulls out and relates in contexts that are not relatable. But the answer is yes, they have the right to sign a treaty; no, they do not have the right to sign a treaty with respect to matters of provincial jurisdiction.

Mr. B. Rae: Let me quote from page 6 of the Attorney General’s speech yesterday:

“The federal government claims it has the constitutional right to sign and implement the agreement unilaterally, regardless of provincial objections. Both of these claims require careful scrutiny.”

He is referring to the other claim about the fact the agreement was in the federal jurisdiction 97 per cent, something the Premier himself has said on a number of occasions; the Attorney General says he is wrong on that front. He says:

“In fact, I want to suggest that these two federal assertions about the agreement are insensitive, confrontational, misleading, and at worst, simply wrong.”

What the Attorney General is saying is that an assertion that the federal government has the unilateral right to sign the agreement is wrong. He says it: “to sign and implement the agreement.”

I would like to ask the Premier what he intends to do at this late date to get the federal government to agree not to sign the deal. Is he going to launch the kind of constitutional challenge on behalf of Ontario that would have the clear effect of signalling to the federal government that this is a fundamental breach of the relationship between the federal government and the provinces and that he regards it as such?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: With great respect to my friend opposite, I do not agree with his

interpretation of the Attorney General’s speech. If my friend disagrees with me, he should ask the Attorney General, because obviously my friend does not read it the same way that he read it and wants to put his own

interpretation on the matter

The answer to the question -- we answered it yesterday and discussed it yesterday -- is that it is the legal opinion of the government, as expressed through the Attorney General, that at this moment there is nothing to take on a constitutional reference. We could frame a theoretical question, but the theoretical question may very well have nothing to do with the reality. The court would probably not be predisposed to dealing with that theoretical question or the hundreds of theoretical questions we could possibly put to it. So the answer to the question is no.

Mr. B. Rae: Perhaps the Premier can tell us, is he prepared to tell us today that he is in fact going to launch a constitutional challenge either on the treaty itself, on a referred question or on legislation that flows from it? Is he prepared to stand today and signal to the federal government, before his meeting tomorrow, that it is his intention to launch a constitutional challenge? Surely, in the light of the Attorney General’s speech yesterday, we are allowed an answer to that simple question.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I answered the simple question yesterday, but I will tell my friend again the simple answer to his simple question. Number one, it is not our advice to launch a constitutional challenge on the treaty, because they have the right to do so. Number two, it is not our intention to frame a bunch of theoretical questions that may or may not be part of implementing legislation in the future. Number three, it is possible, very clearly, that there could be a court challenge on implementation legislation, obviously depending on what comes forward. That is the very clear answer --

Mr. B. Rae: I’m sure that will make them tremble in their boots in Ottawa.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: They sure do not tremble in their boots when my friend goes to Washington. He helps the other side; that is the problem.

HOURS OF WORK

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Local 1005 of the United Steelworkers of America and I have given the minister specific examples of overtime violations at Stelco, violations which in many cases were not investigated months later, and there certainly have been no charges.

The minister stated in response to my question on December 10, “There is disagreement as to what actually constitutes overtime; whether the terms of the collective agreement...or...the Employment Standards Act ought to apply,” an inference that seems to question the evidence presented. The minister also implied that we were always accusing him of not doing his job and trying to use this for political or partisan reasons.

What kind of evidence does the Minister of Labour need to prosecute Stelco for violations of the Employment Standards Act with respect to excessive, illegal overtime?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: That is a very good question, because it gives me an opportunity to expand just somewhat on the reference I made in answer to that question back on December 10.

There are some workers there within that local who are working within the construction sector and so are not covered by the same provisions under the Employment Standards Act. There is some dispute additionally as to the specific provisions that apply within the collective agreement.

I will tell my friend the member for Hamilton East as well that we have investigators from the employment standards branch looking into the matter --

Mr. B. Rae: You’ve had eight months.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I will tell my friend the member for York South (Mr. B. Rae) also -- the investigators are trying to agree on a list of names of workers, pursuant to the letter that was sent to us by Ray Silenzi. There will be a thorough examination of their work records, and if charges are appropriate after that investigation, then they will be laid.

Mr. Mackenzie: The union knows that Stelco is breaking the law. Stelco knows that Stelco is breaking the law. I want to quote to the minister, if he has not seen them, two internal Stelco memos; these were back shortly before the letter he got from the president of the local. Let me read the two brief sentences.

The first one is to the mechanical department and it deals with some of the excess hours and the contracting we are talking about. This is a memo to the superintendents in the plant:

“Clause 20(1)(

a) of the Employment Standards Act, 1980, states that the employees in maintenance occupations may work up to 60 hours per week. This of course does not include overtime hours required for emergency purposes. Records are kept by the employment department and the employees appearing on this list have worked beyond the prescribed limits, in contravention of the act.” I ask the minister to listen. “The bottom line is that we are breaking the law.”

The second memo is minutes from the five plant superintendents’ meeting, back also in November, under the heading “Overtime”:

“Still excessive in some areas, with illegal levels being worked in a number of instances. Superintendents should bear in mind possible serious consequences and make every effort to reduce the overtime.”

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Mackenzie: Can the minister explain why he has not been able to enforce the law? Is he incapable of enforcing it -- if so, he should step down from his job -- or is he simply playing the role of a handmaiden to Stelco?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I just recently stepped into my job and I actually feel quite comfortable. I plan on staying here quite some time, with the concurrence of the Lieutenant Governor.

It is not appropriate for me to comment on confidential memos. If my friend the member for Hamilton East wants to provide me with those documents, I would be happy to provide them to the investigators.

The difference between an allegation by the union that the law is being broken, or an allegation by individual members or by the member for Hamilton East or by anyone else, is that those are simply allegations; but members know, and the member for Hamilton East knows quite well, that when prosecutions are contemplated it is not simply a matter of having allegations, it is having sufficient evidence to know that when you go to court you can have not only an allegation and a charge but a conviction as well.

Mr. Mackenzie: I am sure the minister knows that his investigators could have had those documents and the lists referred to by the company at any time. With the clear admission by Stelco that it has broken the law, can we now expect the minister to carry out his duties as a minister of the crown and see that charges are laid?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: In reference to the question my friend brings up, and that is the law in this respect, he will know we have done very extensive work, through the task force that Arthur Donner led, to create a new regime, because the current regime -- I agree with my friend -- has grave deficiencies.

If our investigations at Stelco determine that in this particular case, given a policy on prosecutions in cases of overtime violations, prosecutions are warranted, then they will be proceeded with. I tell my friend, though, there are violations of overtime provisions in countless businesses around the province and what we really need is a better, clearer regime. I anticipate bringing about a better, clearer regime, based on the work that Arthur Donner did for this government and this assembly.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr. Brandt: My question is for the Premier, and it is related to a statement the Premier made back in 1985. This is a very important matter on educational funding, I would advise him in advance.

His statement at that time was, and I am quoting directly from a speech that the Premier gave, “It would be the intention of the Ontario Liberal Party to restore this level to a minimum of 60 per cent, on the average, across the province -- ”-and I want to underline the last words that he used – “during our first term of office.”

I know the former Minister of Education is advising the Premier very quickly as to what the right response should be to this question. If the two of them would like to stand and answer the question in concert, that is fine too. I do not mind.

The question I have is, since the level of education funding has gone down -- I am trying to read the former minister’s lips, and then I might change the direction of my question -- from the time the Premier took office, and since he made a very specific commitment to fund 60 per cent as an appropriate level of funding on the part of the province, is it his intention to keep the promise as it relates to education funding?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The former Minister of Education told me to tell the member that it is always our intention to keep the promise.

Mr. Jackson: It is now apparent and obvious to this House why the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) has earned the affectionate nickname Edgar Bergen.

On December 11, 1984, the Liberal member for Renfrew North tabled a motion of nonconfidence in the then government based on the government’s education policies. The motion in part asked the House to vote nonconfidence in the government because of “the policy of the government to refuse to provide capital funds to school boards for the building of school facilities in those areas of the province where overcrowding and the use of portables are at a crisis stage. ”

The crisis in the use of portables has significantly increased under his government. According to his own ministry figures, since 1985, portables have increased in this province by 39 per cent, from 4,096 portables up to 5,710 portables currently in use. The increases in capital funding for this purpose have not kept pace with the increased demand.

My question to the Premier is, when does he intend to begin to reduce the number of students who are forced to use portables? When will he fund to the level he promised, at least back to December 11, 1984, when, at that low level he considered it to be a crisis?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I appreciate the honourable member’s question. You know, I remember very well the eloquent speeches of my colleague, now the former minister, who so incisively penetrated some of the inadequacies of the education policy of the former government. May I say in candour that, had the former government followed the advice of the then member of the opposition, we would not have had to deal with the problems today that we are having to deal with. So I say he was again prescient.

I think the member will find that under his leadership and that of the now Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) we have reasserted the importance and the pre-eminence of education as a priority in this province. If one looks back over the increase of funding over the last couple of years -- and I am not here to tell members that there are not problems, because there are problems -- if one looks at his tripling of the capital budget to meet some of the problems that had lain neglected for some 10 or so years, I think one will see a government in terms of two ministers who have made a very substantial commitment, and we are going to rectify the problems we inherited.

Mr. Brandt: The Premier knows full well that his promise was to increase education funding and to reduce the number of portables. Those were the promises he made. Neither of those two questions has been answered, so I will go on to the next one.

Since the Premier accuses the former government of not following the very sage and very specific advice of the former Minister of Education, why would he not take the advice of his own colleague and do the things he recommended in such a vociferous and aggressive fashion when he was in opposition? Why would he not follow his advice and implement those things that he promised the people of Ontario he was going to do? Why does he not keep the promise?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Let me congratulate the two gentlemen opposite on the way they arranged the questions back and forth.

I spent part of last night with Mr. T, the member will be happy to know, and he was telling about some of the wrestling rules and how they pass off on tag teams when they get into trouble, the way those two gentlemen opposite have done. They run and touch hands and pass it down the bench.

Let me say to my honourable friend that we as a government understand there are problems. We do not try to duck our responsibility in that regard. We have started with a very major commitment, particularly to primary, elementary and secondary education, as well as to the post-secondary levels in the skills training areas because that is a priority for this government.

We are making substantial progress. I wish we could solve all the problems in one day. The member constantly refers to the capital allocation. It was tripled from, in the last year of his government -- he will correct me if my figures are wrong -- some $74 million to $226 million. I believe my figures are right.

I wish we could put up a school in one day but we cannot. These things take planning and time but we are working closely with the school boards in this regard. I cannot argue that what we do will ever be enough, but I will say that we have reasserted that priority and we are seeing morale coming back into our school system the likes of which the member has not seen. I am happy to work with the school boards, the teachers, the parents, all who care about this, to make sure we have an educational system second to none.

Mr. Brandt: I have heard that speech before somewhere, but let me simply say to the Premier that I appreciate the fact that he is now having --

Mr. Speaker: Fine, and the new question is to which minister?

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Brandt: My question is of the Minister of Housing. I had not indicated that because I wanted to finish with the Premier.

The question to the Minister of Housing is related to the issue of the number of affordable rental units her ministry intends to construct by the year 1989. The minister has indicated and the government is committed to a total of 102,000 units. At some later stage, the announcement was expanded to the years 1985 to 1990 and that would be the time frame for which she would construct those affordable housing units. She maintained the number of 102,000.

Now, in estimates, she is apparently saying there will be further delays as a result of shortages in materials and manpower. Is she breaking the commitment she has made to the people of Ontario to construct 102,000 housing units by 1990, which is one year longer than was promised in this advertisement during the course of the 1987 election? Would she give us her intentions as to how many units she thinks she can construct?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: In direct answer to the question of the member opposite, no, we do not intend to break our promise. We will indeed be building 102,000 units of housing for the people of Ontario by the year 1990, both new buildings and through renovation.

Mr. Cousens: The member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) has tried to get an answer and at least have something happen by 1990. Indeed, this House knows there was a promise that there would be 102,000 affordable homes by 1989. Already there is a moving away from the promise that was made. In 1985, there was a Liberal election promise that would have placed a ceiling on rental units at four per cent. Also in 1985, there was a promise to establish a central rental registry. Everyone knows they did not succeed in keeping rental ceilings at four per cent.

Can the minister tell this House and the tenants when she will meet the three-year-old promise of the rent registry being fully implemented?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I am glad to answer that question for the honourable member opposite. The rent registry is operational now. There are about 150,000 addresses with the exact rent on them right now on the computer. They will be increased to the full amount of about 550,000. There are going to be, starting very soon, 10,000 mailed out every single day for the next number of months to inform people of their legal rent. This is one of the things we were able to do that has not been done before, that establishes a base legal rent for most of the apartments in Ontario.

Mr. Cousens: The minister still has not answered the question as to when this rent registry will be completed. It is really only five per cent done, so that is a promise that has been broken.

I have another broken promise from this Liberal government. During the election campaign, another of the great promises that a lot of people liked and probably voted for the Liberals because of is the Ontario home ownership savings plan, which was announced on August 14 by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) in Kingston. Everyone assumed that this program would be in place in the 1987 tax year.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am having a little difficulty. I hope this supplementary relates to the previous response.

Mr. Cousens: The Ontario home ownership savings plan was announced and promised by the government in August of this year during the election campaign, and it has not been introduced in the tax year 1987, as was expected.

Given the current crisis in housing and the need to help first-time home buyers, will the minister adopt a proposal supported by our party and by many other people of eliminating land transfer taxes for first-time home buyers?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: We will be doing anything that we think is reasonable to increase the affordability of housing for first-time buyers. Our home ownership savings plan is exactly that kind of proposal. It is being worked on right now by the Treasury and the Ministry of Revenue, along with the people in the Ministry of Housing. It will be announced for the 1988 tax year, and I will take any other reasonable suggestions very seriously.

PROJECT 3000

Mr. Breaugh: I have a question for the Minister of Housing concerning her Project 3000 program. Why has her ministry decimated a program that was specifically designed to meet the housing needs of people with special needs, a program that has been in operation for a couple of years? People know about it. There is a whole network of people out there wanting to make proposals under this. Her ministry has been averaging about 1,500 units for the last two years. Why has the minister cut that back to only 330 units for the next three years? Why did she decimate a program that actually worked?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: Project 3000 was an allocation of 3,000 units, in particular for people with special needs. It was announced once and then it was to be allocated over three years. The member opposite is correct that it has been a very successful program.

It is partly because of that program that we also introduced a program called Supportive Community Living, which is an additional 1,000 units for people with special needs who also need various kinds of supports to be able to live independently in the community.

Our commitment to those programs remains and we are bringing those projects forward. They have indeed been very successful and many, many people are now living in housing they would otherwise not be able to occupy.

Mr. Breaugh: In the middle of the election, in August, the Minister of Housing in Ontario approved 2,000 units under this one program alone. By December, the minister had cut the program to 330 units a year for the next three years. Can she explain the dramatic difference between August and December? Have all the needs been met or is the truth simply that the election is over?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The commitment to 3,000 units under Project 3000 is there, and they will be built. The commitment of 1,000 units to Supportive Community Living is there, and they will be built over two to three years. I have that commitment. It will happen.

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Eves: My question is to the Minister of Health. On January 22, 1985, her party promised to eliminate Ontario health insurance plan premiums within five years. On March 7, 1985, her party promised to establish a denticare program for children and needy seniors throughout Ontario. When is she going to live up to these commitments?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: There are many commitments that we have made to the people of Ontario regarding health care, and I am proud to say that we have been making great progress towards them. I would like to point out to the member opposite that in fact our capital program of $850 million in addressing over a decade of underfunding of health facilities is one of the most significant capital programs in health care spending in decades.

Mr. Eves: As usual, the minister has not even answered the question. During the 1985 election campaign, her party stated that it would eliminate OHIP premiums and would phase them out by raising personal and corporate income taxes in Ontario. She has had three budgets since then. The Liberals have raised personal and corporate income taxes in Ontario, but they have not eliminated OHIP premiums.

The Liberals also stated that they would pay for a denticare program that would serve two million children and senior citizens in Ontario and they would do that by banning extra billing. The money they saved from that would go into the denticare program. The Liberals have banned extra billing in Ontario; the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) has the money. When is the minister going to introduce the denticare program?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I would like to point out to the member opposite that in our almost three years we have not increased OHIP premiums in this province. Further, we have removed from the OHIP premium rolls over 40,000 individuals in this province who under the previous government had to pay OHIP premiums.

BLOOD TRANSFUSION SERVICE

Mrs. O’Neill: My question is to the Minister of Health. I would like to bring to the minister’s attention again the situation in Ottawa at the Red Cross centre, which serves the 29 hospitals in eastern Ontario. I was pleased to receive the minister’s answer in regard to the progress of the capital funding process for this Ottawa centre. While I recognize that the long-term solution is a new blood transfusion centre for Ottawa, I am very concerned about the current overcrowding situation. Is the minister willing to consider alternative solutions to aid the Ottawa centre in the short term?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The member for Ottawa-Rideau has raised this question with me, and I recognize and believe that it is important for the Red Cross to have the necessary facilities to be able to provide for an adequate blood supply. In the past two years, this government has been making progress. We have contributed money to build a new head office facility for the Canadian Red Cross Society in Ottawa. As well, we have announced a new transfusion centre in Metropolitan Toronto.

My ministry will consider interim measures to address the issue which the member has raised and to help resolve the current overcrowding situation.

Mrs. O’Neill: I thank the minister for following up on this very important issue which I brought to her attention. I feel, however, that time is of the essence in this matter. When will the interim measures begin?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I understand that staff at the ministry have expressed willingness to meet with representatives of the Canadian Red Cross to discuss any proposals which would solve the current situation in Ottawa on an interim basis. Let me assure the member that we will work actively with the Red Cross to see what we can do in the interim to solve this very important issue.

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Hampton: My question is for the Minister of Health. A week ago Tuesday, the Toronto Star featured an

article which detailed the shortage of doctors in northern Ontario The first paragraph of the

article starts out by saying, “There’s a wry joke circulating among some newcomers to Ontario’s north: ‘Trying to find a family doctor? Call Toronto.’”

The fact is that many communities across northern Ontario have too few family doctors. Some have only one and some make do with a succession of family doctors who stay for six months or a little longer and then move on.

The situation has existed for some time, and it has certainly existed over the last two and a half years. We have communities in desperate need. When is the Minister of Health going to do something about it?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I recognize and share the concern of the member that there are some difficulties that northern communities are having in attracting and keeping doctors in the north. There are a number of incentive programs available right now within the ministry. We provide, on an interim basis, locums where required, and we look to resolve the problems of the individual communities with longer-term solutions through incentive programs and the underserviced area program in the ministry.

Mr. Hampton: The people of northern Ontario are well aware of the incentive programs. Some of them have been around for a while. Some of them offer a few thousand dollars extra for a doctor who locates in northern Ontario. Everybody knows that for doctors in northern Ontario, money is not the issue; they are so busy that they can make more money than they can possibly have the time to spend. Financial incentives do not answer the question at all.

Given that financial incentives do not work, when is the minister going to do what the communities up north are asking: (1) designate a medical school to be a medical school for northern Ontario and set up admissions criteria that will select people who want to practice there; and (2) admit some of the doctors from outside of Canada who want to practice in northern Ontario, who want to intern in northern Ontario. When is the minister going to do that?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Let me say to the member opposite that we believe there are several ways that we can respond to the needs of the northern communities for medical services and medical personnel. We believe, in fact, that there is an adequate supply of medical personnel in the province and that the problems we have are geographic problems. In fact, we have been very successful in placing medical personnel in northern communities, and there are now some 590 physicians who are located in northern communities through the underserviced area program, 181 of whom are qualified specialists.

The issue that he raises is particularly complex, but it is not one of medical supply as opposed to distribution problems. I would be interested in sharing with him solutions to that problem and further discussion.

PHYSIOTHERAPISTS’ FEES

Mr. Eves: I have another question for the Minister of Health. On May 22, 1986, her predecessor, the member for Bruce (Mr. Elston), promised Ontario physiotherapists that the government would close the gap between treatment fees paid to physicians and physiotherapists. The gap at that time was 15 cents. Today, under her government’s stewardship, it is $1.10. Why has she not lived up to that commitment?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: It is a very healthy day in the Legislature. Let me thank the member for his question and inform him that at the present time negotiations are under way between the Ministry of Health and the Ontario Physiotherapy Association.

I am aware of these issues. I feel that all issues can be resolved through negotiations and that it would be inappropriate for me to comment further at this time.

Mr. Eves: The minister knows very well, or should know, that those negotiations she speaks of were concluded on November 9 of this year, when the ministry made its final offer of a two per cent increase to the physiotherapists, leaving a 90 per cent gap. It is inconceivable that after her predecessor made this commitment, the gap is now six times larger than it was when he was the minister. When is she going to fulfil the promise?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The member opposite would know that the issues he has raised are complex, as opposed to the simplistic approach he has attempted to paint in the Legislature today, and we believe that they are best resolved through the negotiation process.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD

Mr. Owen: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Since becoming an MPP, I have probably had more complaints in the area of the Workers’ Compensation Board from injured workers than any other area. They favour and speak well of the workers’ advisers, but say they are overworked and that there is a long backlog. They complain that their mail goes unanswered, that their telephone calls are not returned and that doctors’ reports are lost. I know this problem is not unique to this government. In my 30 years as a lawyer, I cannot think that they have ever been free of these complaints.

I would like to ask the minister what he is proposing by way of changes so that we can give better service and better help to the injured workers.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I say to my friend the member for Simcoe Centre, welcome to the world of an MPP. All of us have, in the number of years we have been here, had clients within our own offices dealing with specific problems of workers, and the problems of injured workers in particular. My friend asked the question specifically with regard to the office of the worker adviser. Obviously from the tone of his question, he knows that problems have developed and there is somewhat of a backlog there. In his question he asked whether there were major changes being considered.

At this point, we are doing a number of things, including adding additional staff in areas where there is very significant pressure on the office of the worker adviser and, in addition, reviewing the way in which those offices are handling cases to ensure they are being dealt with as expeditiously as possible. But the real answer is in reforms within legislation covering the Workers’ Compensation Board so that the injured worker does not have such a severe hurdle to get over before resolving his claim.

Mr. Owen: In the list of complaints that I receive from the injured workers is the Downsview hospital. When the people from our area have to go to this hospital, they have to be hospitalized or have a hotel, which is not usually available. It means they are removed from their families, their children, their wives or their parents. What is being considered by the government simply to eliminate the Downsview hospital and try to look to the local hospitals, the local doctors and the local specialists to try to provide the service which has been complained about for years?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The question of the Downsview rehabilitation centre was the subject of a rather thorough study by Vickery Stoughton some many months ago. My friend will know and he will hear, if the official opposition stays quiet enough so that I can answer his question, that currently there are active discussions going on with the Ministry of Health, between my own ministry and the Workers’ Compensation Board, as to certain proposals contained within that study, including the transfer of the facility to the Ministry of Health.

But there are services within the Downsview rehabilitation centre which are unique to the province, delivered in a way that cannot now be provided and is not available anywhere else in the province. There are a number of problems identified by the report and those are being dealt with currently.

I cannot tell my friend that we have the ultimate resolution or we have a conclusive answer, but discussions are going on with the Ministry of Health and we are looking at a number of options, pursuant to our objective for much earlier intervention for physical --

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is fine.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr. Wildman: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food regarding the farm debt crisis.

In view of the fact that a total of 11,203 Ontario farm operations, or 28 per cent of all Ontario farms, were either insolvent or experiencing serious cash flow difficulties as of the beginning of this year, and approximately 9,400 of these were in arrears of their debt repayments, and in view of the fact that other provinces provide long-term credit for farmers, will the government change its position and accept the advice of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture to develop an integrated financial assistance package for agriculture in this province and consider buying out the Ontario loan portfolio of the Farm Credit Corp.?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: First of all, let me tell the member that the Ontario loan portfolio of the Farm Credit Corp. is not for sale. If one is going to buy something, it has to be for sale. It is not for sale. It is as simple as that.

Second, for the two and a half years that we have formed the government, we have provided all kinds of financial assistance to the farmers. I could just mention the Ontario family farm interest rate reduction program, the guaranteed operating capital loans program, the land stewardship program and the Ontario Farm-Start program for beginning farmers. I could go on and on and name all the programs we have in place to help the farmers with the financial problems they have today.

Mr. Wildman: No one disputes that the OFFIRR program, for instance, is a good program, but it certainly does not meet the need. I think the minister should admit that, rather than making the kinds of comments he made just now.

Will the government, as requested by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, examine the feasibility of providing financial restructuring assistance to otherwise viable farm operations where there is a mismatch between debt service requirements and capacity?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: It has always been my feeling that the federal government has the responsibility, through the Farm Credit Corp., to provide long-term credit for farmers. We did have a long-term credit program in this province at one time, the junior farmer establishment program. Then the Farm Credit Corp. came into being and the junior farmer program was phased out because we did not see the need to duplicate efforts in two credit agencies.

What we have been doing is putting pressure on the federal government to change the role of the Farm Credit Corp. whereby it makes more credit available to farmers, credit at interest rates which are fixed and interest rates which the farmers can cope with.

We have had those recommendations before the federal government for a year and a half now and we feel it is up to the federal government to change the role of the Farm Credit Corp. so that farmers can rely on a source of long-term credit.

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. Brandt: I have a question for the Premier. The question relates to an announcement that was made within the last short while with respect to the seventh province that has indicated it is going to support a freer trade agreement with the United States.

Premier McKenna of New Brunswick has now come on side and he indicates there are three provisos for his support. One is that regional subsidies not be affected; second, that the omnibus trade bill not include Canada; and third, if there are any workers who are disfranchised from their positions as a result of the changes in employment patterns in Canada, in his province particularly, he wants assistance for those workers.

What is the Premier’s response to the seven Premiers now, who are attempting to build a stronger Canada through a freer trade agreement with the United States?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am aware of Premier McKenna’s position. I had an opportunity to chat with him today. The member will note that his conditional acceptance is a very tentative one. It is dependent upon the omnibus trade bill not applying to Canada. I can tell members, on the basis of advice that we have at the moment, the omnibus trade bill does apply to Canada.

If there is some change over the next little while, obviously that would make it more attractive if the omnibus trade bill does not apply to us; but the member will notice it is conditional approval.

Also, he talked about adjustment assistance. So far we have had very conflicting signals from Ottawa on that question. On one hand, we hear from Mr. Bouchard we are going to lose 500,000 jobs as a result of it. The Prime Minister says there will be massive assistance for readjustment for those people who lose their jobs as a result of it. Then Mr. Wilson the next day says there will not.

My honourable friend must have the same problem I have of whom to believe. What is the real situation with respect to adjustments? He is obviously worried about the food processing industry and a number of others and the ongoing question of regional assistance, which may well be negotiated away over the next five years.

The member will notice that is a tentative approval. All those things, if the conditions are met, would make it more attractive not only for New Brunswick but also for other provinces. There is no very clear indication at all on that, and I do not think one can assume, just because in general the member favours the theory, that those conditions are going to be met.

Mr. Brandt: It is sad to hear the Premier talk about the fact that these premiers are indicating some kind of support in principle. They are very committed to the principle of improving access to American markets, which we are so dependent upon. We now have Atlantic Canada, Quebec, and western Canada, with the exception of one province, virtually unanimous in favour of an agreement which the Premier continues to try to pick holes in.

Admittedly, it is an agreement which is not without flaws, not without weaknesses, not without tradeoffs, but it is an agreement --

Interjection.

Mr. Brandt: I said that for a very simple reason. I recognize, as all members should, that in every agreement you have to negotiate a tradeoff with your trading partner; you have to give up something to get something. When will Ontario get on side, join the majority of the provincial premiers, negotiate, if necessary, with the federal government to improve the deal, which I believe can be done, and get on with the job of nation-building?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I want to make one preliminary point, if I may. Even though Nova Scotia’s position is not exactly clear, we assume it is going to support the deal. There are a lot of conversations going on between the premiers and the federal government with respect to their special circumstances, as my honourable friend will know, but it is not a regional debate in the sense that there is one western province, one central Canadian province and one eastern province that take the same position on this matter.

My friend stands in this House and says that the deal is flawed, that the deal has got lots of holes in it and that we did not get a particularly good deal; then my friend stands in the House and says we can change the deal. Why does he not stand up and say how he would change the deal and make it better? Why does he not stand up --

Mr. Brandt: All right. You want me to stand up right now and tell you how to change the deal.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I can say to my honourable friend, absolutely, we have not achieved --

Mr. Brandt: You are the only one saying that. No one else is saying that.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I will give the member an opportunity in a moment. We have not achieved the thing he thought we achieved, that is, secure access into the United States. I would commend the deal to my honourable friend as good reading. I think he should take more of a briefing on this than just listening to the Prime Minister. He should talk to the experts and the lawyers.

He will find we have not bought one bit of protection from the so-called US protectionist legislation, and that is the reality. They have enshrined US protectionist law against us; we have bought into the process. So we have not achieved what my friend thinks we have achieved. It is not easy --

Mr. Brandt: You are isolating Ontario. There is a price to be paid for this. I tell you that is what you are doing.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot hear a thing. There are a number of other members who would like to ask questions. New question, the member for Brampton South.

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS

Mr. Callahan: My question is for the Minister of Correctional Services. The minister recently made an announcement in the House indicating that there will be increased facilities to look into the question of abuse of alcohol and drugs and psychiatric problems. Recognizing that a large majority, if not all cases, particularly of violence, revolve around the abuse of drugs or alcohol or are a result of a person being unfortunate enough to suffer from a psychiatric disorder, I am very pleased as well to see that there is an increase in this facility at the Vanier Centre for Women in Brampton.

In the light of these programs, can the minister tell the House how much money has been committed to this increase in these services and also who the staffing people are who will be involved in it?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I will be quite happy to answer the honourable member’s question. The annual operating budget for the rehabilitation and treatment centre in the Vanier Centre for Women in Brampton will be $600,000 a year. Staffing increases will start in January with the hiring of a psychometrist, a psychiatrist and social workers, plus a fee-for-service psychiatrist.

Mr. Callahan: An additional difficulty that has arisen over the years is that when a judge, particularly in the case of somebody with a psychiatric disorder, wishes to send that person to one of these facilities, it is very often necessary to determine whether there is a bed available for the person in custody. The process of the former government, which was one of inactivity, resulted in many people spending days or perhaps weeks in custody until it could be determined whether a bed was available in the facility in order to have the person examined.

I would like to ask the minister, recognizing the technology we have today in terms of computer terminals and the fact that most, if not all, of our provincial courts have terminals on line, would it be possible or would he undertake to look into the question of whether bed availability could be made available on these computer terminals to avoid prisoners being held in custody?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I think that is an excellent question and an excellent proposal by the member for Brampton South. I will be quite happy to look into that and possibly will be quite happy some day to make an announcement of some sort of program like that.

HOUSING FOR THE DISABLED

Mr. Allen: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. There seems now to be considerable doubt whether the minister will meet her objectives with regard to affordable housing, with severe impact on housing for the disabled. If she looks closely at the Ontario home renewal program statistics for the last year of the Tory regime and at her own, she will discover that the available funds for the disabled have exactly plateaued.

If the minister looks at the program she was asked about by my colleague the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh), Project 3000, we note quite clearly that her own answer did not disagree with the conclusion that this program was reduced to 20 per cent of its former self. We also know her ministry is one of the major roadblocks in the proclamation of the right-to-reasonable-accommodation

section of the Ontario Human Rights Code as amended last December. That has been in the hands of her ministry and several others for the last 12 months.

Does that not suggest this is all a very unfortunate commentary upon the commitment and priority in her ministry for housing for the disabled?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The commitment of the Ministry of Housing, and in particular my commitment, to increasing housing for the disabled is very real. I want the member to know that under Project 3000 and under Supportive Community Living that commitment remains and is moving quickly. Under support for the disabled, we have increased the allocation so that those people who currently have asked for funds under the disabled housing program will be getting the support they have asked for.

Mr. Allen: Those are very brave words. If the minister has the time, I would like her to table some comparisons and some real statistics on the question, because it is quite obvious from what has happened with respect to the question my colleague asked that even though she is continuing a program, she has wiped it out to 20 per cent of its former self. She really has. There is no question about that.

The minister must be aware that the most valuable tool in the hands of the disabled with respect to accessing accommodation will be the right to reasonable accommodation in their hands to wield in the marketplace. That will produce infinitely more results than all the minister’s programs currently in place put together. When is she going to overcome the roadblock in her ministry and get this

section of the act proclaimed so that the disabled can have the housing and services they need?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons (Mr. Mancini) announced in the House a few days ago part of the commitment we have to increasing housing for the disabled. Supportive Community Living, Project 3000 and our own project for housing for the disabled also indicate the degree of our commitment. We will of course be looking at the right to reasonable accommodation very seriously.

NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr. Harris: I wonder if the Minister of Northern Development could tell us when he plans to implement the promise that was made in Sudbury in March 1985, “The Liberal government will provide $20 million to finance a $100-per-household northern Ontario tax credit.” Nothing in 1985, nothing in 1986, and 1987 is just about finished; could the minister tell us when he plans to live up to that commitment?

L’hon. M. Fontaine: Premièrement, je tiens à remercier l’honorable député de Nipissing de sa question.

M. Villeneuve: Bientôt?

L’hon. M. Fontaine: Non, non. Voyons!

On this question, I think it was a promise made in 1985, as the member says, but we have decided to go with other kinds of tax credits.

By the way, we decided to put some money into roads, and we decided to look into the heritage fund that we are going to put $30 million into. This is the way we went. I think this promise was not repeated in 1986 or 1987. Was it 1985? Last year, we decided to use that money instead for the roads.

Mr. Harris: It is pretty clear. If the government only makes the promise once or twice, then it does not count. It is only if they keep repeating the promise that they have to live up to it. It is obvious that one is down the tubes. Not only has the government not lived up to it, it does not plan to.

Perhaps the minister could respond to the commitment to equalize gasoline prices that was made across northern Ontario in 1985 as well. Since that time, we have had a study that says yes, on average, they are four cents a litre higher and no result -- well, it was a government study that said that. Can the minister tell us when he plans to live up to the commitment to equalize gasoline prices in northern Ontario?

L’hon. M. Fontaine: Premièrement, je n’ai aucune remontrance à prendre du député de Nipissing sur les promesses du gouvernement.

I have lived in northern Ontario for at least 53 years. The member’s government made promises all its life and it did nothing for northern Ontario. It could not even move two little jobs from the Whitney Block, the safety of the mines --

An hon. member: Elevators.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: -- the elevators, and the safety on the cables was still being done there. The member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) tried twice through orders in council to move those little jobs to the north. They could not. So I do not have to take anything from them.

Deuxièmement, je vais lui répondre sur la question du gaz -- et l’autre gars là-bas qui parle pour rien dire, ferme-la donc. Attends une minute, là.

Mr. Jackson: How much was the forest management agreement?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: Never mind that. Just do not talk about that.

Deuxièmement, sur l’affaire de la gazoline, la différence n’est plus que $0.04 du litre. Avec les études qui ont été faites durant l’année, ça diminue. Dans l’été passé, c’était égal à celui à Ottawa et à Toronto.

M. Villeneuve: Vous êtes d’accord avec ça?

L’hon. M. Fontaine: Oui.

M. Villeneuve: D’accord?

L’hon. M. Fontaine: De temps en temps, dans mon propre comté, la différence peut être de $0.03; ils ont augmenté le prix durant le dernier mois. Mais en moyenne, sur la Route 69, ou à North Bay, à Sudbury, à Thunder Bay, c’est le même prix qu’à Ottawa et à Toronto, presque.

Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired -- thank goodness.

If any members want to have private conversations, I hope they will keep it quiet so the member for St. Catharines-Brock may present his petition.

PETITIONS

NATUROPATHY

Mr. Dietsch: I wish to table a petition which reads:

“To His Honour the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario:

“We, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government to introduce legislation that would guarantee naturopaths the right to practice their art and science to the fullest without prejudice or harassment.”

This petition is signed by 80 people.

CANADIAN GYPSUM CO.

Mr. B. Rae: I wish to table in the House a petition from my constituency from the area surrounding the Canadian Gypsum Co. plant in my riding.

“To His Honour the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario:

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

“Whereas the Canadian Gypsum Co. of 21 Oak Street in the city of York has been the recipient of complaints from residents in Weston, Etobicoke, and North York regarding emissions from its plant, and

whereas the emissions increased after the installation of another stack in October 1986. These emissions, night, day and most weekends are an environmental and health concern to residents in the area.

“Whereas government actions in the Ministry of the Environment 424-3000 complaint line have been ineffective in dealing with this matter;

“We, the undersigned, do hereby demand that the Canadian Gypsum Co. at 21 Oak Street in the city of York immediately comply with the Environmental Protection Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario 1980;

“And that the Ontario government, through the Ministry of the Environment, immediately investigate all emissions from the Canadian Gypsum Co. and take necessary steps in enforcing the air quality standards set out under the Environmental Protection Act;

“And that the Ministry of the Environment take inventory of all chemicals and other substances used, manufactured, or the result of a byproduct in the plant, and further ensure that the residents have immediate access to this information.”

It is signed by well over 900 residents in the northern part of my constituency.

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Fleet from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr21,

An Act respecting the Association of Registered Wood Energy Technicians of Ontario;

Bill Pr23,

An Act to revive Sudbury Cardio-Thoracic Foundation;

Bill Pr26,

An Act to revive 353583 Ontario Limited;

Bill Pr54,

An Act to revive the Toronto Ski Club;

Bill Pr70,

An Act to revive Community Youth Programs Incorporated.

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill Pr8,

An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EDUCATION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Ward moved first reading of Bill 76,

An Act to amend the Education Act and Certain Other Acts related to Education.

Motion agreed to.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Eakins moved first reading of Bill 77,

An Act to amend the Municipal Elections Act and the Assessment Act.

Motion agreed to.

FARM IMPLEMENTS ACT

Hon. Mr. Riddell moved first reading of Bill 78,

An Act respecting the Sale of Farm Implements.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I made my comments earlier on this bill, and judging from the response of my opposition critics, I think we could give this bill second and third readings right away.

Mr. Speaker: Are you asking for unanimous consent? No? OK.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Conway moved first reading of Bill 79,

An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Conway: The purpose of this bill is to increase indemnities and allowances under this act by 4.4 per cent.

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Conway moved first reading of Bill 80,

An Act to amend the Executive Council Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Conway: The purpose of this bill is to increase salaries under this act by 4.4 per cent.

ELECTION FINANCES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Conway moved first reading of Bill 81,

An Act to amend the Election Finances Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Very briefly, it is proposed under this amendment act that

section 45 of the Election Finances Act, 1986, be repealed. This

section relates to the filing of financial information whenever the chief financial officer of a political party resigns.

ENERGY EFFICIENCY ACT

Hon. Mr. Conway moved, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Wong, first reading of Bill 82,

An Act respecting Energy Efficiency.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Conway: The purpose of this act is to enable the government to introduce regulations to ensure that specified products sold in Ontario are tested for their ability to use energy efficiently, using acceptable and recognized procedures. Furthermore, the act will allow the government to introduce, as necessary, minimum energy efficiency standards for defined products such as refrigerators, freezers, clothes dryers and home heating equipment.

POLLS

Hon. Mr. Conway: Before orders of the day, I have laid on the table a voluminous collection representing two public opinion polls, one done for the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology concerning the free trade question and a second done for the former Ministry of Citizenship and Culture.

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: Does the member for Sarnia have any further comments?

Mr. Brandt: As I was saying in my introductory remarks of yesterday in regard to the free trade question, I believe even more so today that it is absolutely imperative that the government of Ontario re-evaluate its position as it relates to this particular question not only in the interest of Ontario but in the interest as well of a strong and united Canada.

I used the phrase in a question to the Premier (Mr. Peterson) earlier today in question period about the importance of nation-building.

It is interesting that when the Honourable John Turner was speaking out in the Atlantic provinces and made some comment to the effect that he was in opposition to a trade agreement and that he in fact was supporting the status quo, as it were, the response from a great number of those residents of the eastern part of this particular country was a very simple and a very direct one: “Do you recognize the fact that we are experiencing a 15 to 20 per cent unemployment rate in our provinces?” They do not happen to have an economy that is as strong and as buoyant as we enjoy here in Ontario.

They want to have the opportunities to expand their trade. They want to have an opportunity to enhance the amount of product they can sell to the United States market. They recognize full well that cannot be accomplished in the present environment and with the rules as they stand relating to trading relationships between our countries. The only way that can be accomplished is with a more formalized agreement that sets in place certain principles which indicate how that trade is going to be carried out in the interests of both countries.

The Atlantic provinces recognize that; the western provinces recognize that. Quebec recognizes that is essential. Fully seven out of the 10 provinces now -- with Premier McKenna coming on stream -- have indicated their support for this deal. Of the only provinces that are not on side, one province is philosophically opposed because of its leadership and its leaning towards a more socialistic kind of administration, that being the province under Premier Pawley: Manitoba. I can understand that one. I do not agree with them.

I certainly do not support what Mr. Pawley is saying, even though a couple of years ago, I might add, Mr. Pawley was a free-trader and indicated that he would favour some kind of trade deal with the United States. Now Mr. Pawley has changed his tune, obviously as a result of some influence that may have been brought to bear by members of his party on the position he took a couple of years ago.

The other province is Prince Edward Island.

We have the largest of all provinces, the one that has benefited the most of any province in this entire country as a result of having a formalized trade agreement with our American trading partners. Ontario should stand back and consider the kinds of benefits we have realized or gained -- namely, billions of dollars of investment in our province and thousands upon thousands of jobs -- which are directly attributable to the Canada-US auto pact.

Those members who have taken a close look at the auto pact and related that to the trade agreement we are debating and discussing in this House today may say there is a difference, the difference being that under the auto pact we have managed trade. We have a very specific series of percentages built into the equations as they relate to the auto pact and that makes the difference between a free trade pact and the auto pact. I guess there is some justification for that argument, to a point.

However, there is another argument that I believe can be put forward which is equally as valid, and it is that when you see the major trading countries in the world, all the major industrial nations forming into trading blocs, there appears to be more than just passing interest on the part of those who want to improve their economies by entering into a formalized agreement, with some reasonable checks and balances built into the agreement which will allow for enhanced or improved trade between two sovereign nations, each nation retaining its cultural identity, its sovereignty and its social programs.

All of those things are not on the table and will be retained. In fact, all of those things according to certain studies -- one being the C. D. Howe Institute study -- indicate that we will strengthen our sovereignty and strengthen our ability to deliver social programs as a direct result of having the financial strength, the financial wherewithal to afford and pay for those social programs.

That is the reason we have a European Community and that is the reason Canada and the United States are looking to form an agreement, not dissimilar to but certainly more expansive and more elaborate than the agreement that was entered into between Ireland and Great Britain some 20 years ago and the agreements between New Zealand and Australia. These are all similar agreements based on geographic proximity of one country to another where there is a certain degree of interdependence.

If one were to argue that we do not have a degree of interdependence between Canada and the United States, then one would be absolutely uninformed or misinformed about the trade figures. I appreciate the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter) being in the House this afternoon, because I can recall one of the initiatives when I sat in that ministry and attempted to do the job he is doing and carry out the responsibilities that called for.

I can recall saying to my ministry officials, “We should take the initiative to try to reduce our dependence on American trade.” I too have some fears about 90 per cent of all Ontario sales going to one customer. I do not think that is healthy. I would prefer that was not the case. But the reality is we share a continent. We happen to share a similar culture in many respects. We share a language to a great extent, with the exception of our friends in Quebec who have the other official language of our country.

We share a great number of things with the United States, one of which is that we have had a pretty good trading relationship up until now, not without its aggravations and not without is problems, but it has been a relatively sound trading relationship built on the understanding of both countries that we are mature nations and that we trade in a fair and equitable fashion to the extent we can.

This trading arrangement we are proposing under a free trade pact would improve that trade. That is the reason other countries have entered into a trade pact as well. I say to the members of the Liberal Party who have indicated they are adamantly opposed to this deal that it is interesting to note that nowhere in the world to date has a country which has entered into a trade pact with another country withdrawn.

The experience of the European common market is a very interesting one that I bring to their attention. Very simply, what has happened with the European common market is that it formed through a series of countries that initially joined in a trading arrangement, which ultimately resulted in the addition of Great Britain, Spain and Portugal, and more recently, the request on the part of Greece that it too wishes to join the European common market.

Are they all nation states that have no interest in their sovereignty or their culture or the preservation of their unique identity, because each and every one of them has a unique identity in a much smaller land mass, in closer proximity to all of these other influences around them? Some of the nations are much larger, some of them obviously much smaller, but they have banded together in an inward-looking self-interest which allows them to improve on the economies of the respective partner states that are involved in that particular assembly, and it makes sense for them.

But by reflection, and this is the point I want to make with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, what I found that was very frustrating to me as a minister, and I am sure that in those moments of contemplation when he is sitting alone in his office thinking about the problems of the world, I am sure that he too sits back and says to himself: “How do we penetrate those markets? How do we find a way to get Canadian, or more particularly Ontarian, goods and services in to those foreign markets?”

What you find, increasingly, are high tariff walls, nontariff barriers or protectionism of one form or another, which undercuts any opportunity that we might have, irrespective of the quality of our product or the price of our product. We simply cannot penetrate those markets.

Let me tell the minister about my experience, being one who was committed to a multilateral trade arrangement rather than a bilateral trade deal to the exclusion of any multilateral activities. This is what happened. I was able to take an 88 per cent dependency on the American market and drive it all the way down to 90 per cent over the course of time that I was there, and yes, the members heard me correctly. In fact, with all of the efforts, with all of the enthusiasm that I could bring to the job, all I could do was find that we had even more dependency upon our American trading partners.

The minister might say, “Brands failed at that particular exercise.” I would say to the current minister, if that would be his response to the efforts that I made as it relates to trying to improve those figures, let me simply suggest that figure of 90 per cent remains today, as the minister well knows. I do not fault the minister for that. I place no blame on him whatever, because I know the difficulties, and I have to tell him that we are the only industrial nation in the world that does not trade within a population trading block of a minimum of 100,000 people, with the singular exception of Australia.

An hon. member: One hundred thousand?

Mr. Brandt: I am sorry, 100 million people.

Our 25-million domestic market is simply insufficient to give us the kind of base that we require to be able to sell competitively in certain goods and products that we may wish to be able to market in other parts of the world. That happens to be the reality of the circumstances that we find ourselves in.

What truly bothers me, however, about the position that we find ourselves in and the debate that we are involved in today, is the fact that Ontario is on the outside looking in, as it relates to this trading proposal that is being made by the federal government. Here we have a Liberal Premier in Quebec saying the following, as it relates to trade and the matter that I am discussing with members at the present time. I am quoting directly from the speech that Premier Bourassa made, although he delivered the speech in French. I will take the liberty of using the translated version as accurately as I can in the other official language. Premier Bourassa said at that time:

“A while ago, the Prime Minister of Canada mentioned that Canada is one of the countries most dependent on international trade; some 30 per cent of our activity. This is a relatively high percentage among the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. Some 20 countries within the OECD are already members of either a common market or a free trade zone. Turkey is another OECD country wishing to enter the common market. Two of them have signed an agreement, Canada and the United States.

Therefore, of the 24 countries belonging to the OECD, 24 countries which trade mainly with us, which are comparable to us, only one is not interested in belonging to a free trade zone or a common market and that is Japan, for very understandable geographic and economic reasons.

“Why then would Canada choose isolation? Why would it choose isolation, contrary to most, to almost all of its trading partners, when it still has a very high rate of unemployment, a relatively limited market of only 25 million people and especially when it is at the gateway of the most important or one of the most important economic markets in the world?”

The points that Premier Bourassa made I endorse entirely: the size of our market and the fact that the world is becoming increasingly competitive. The world in fact is changing very rapidly around us, and there are some who sit back very comfortably and would suggest there is such a thing as the status quo that we can fall back on.

Oh yes, I know and I have heard from some Liberal members: “We’re not against a trade deal. We’re not against freer trade. We’re not against a multilateral trading arrangement with other countries. What we’re against is this deal. This is a bad deal.” That is what they have been saying. “This deal does not incorporate everything we want.”

How naïve can you get? Those members who have been in business, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, his very fine and capable assistant and other members who have been in the world of free enterprise some number of years before they came into this House know full well there are few deals that are ever put together where you get everything you want. There are tradeoffs, and yes, deals are flawed. Yes, deals perhaps have some weaknesses.

I admitted during the course of my question to the Premier today that, sure, I would have liked to have had a better deal in some fashion than the one that was negotiated. But this deal is sufficiently strong and contains a sufficient number of positive elements that I encourage him to review the deal again, as have Premier McKenna and British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Quebec, Premier Bourassa, and all of the east coast provinces with the singular exception now of Prince Edward Island.

When he reviews that objectively and with an open mind, I have every confidence that many members will come to the same conclusion I have come to, that conclusion being very simply that we gain far more from this deal than we lose and that this deal will benefit Ontario and will benefit Canada very substantially.

I have heard it said: “There is a flawed dispute settlement mechanism. It is not as perfect as we would like. What we would like is unfettered, guaranteed access to the American market.” We have heard that before from certain spokesmen, one of whom is the Premier of this province. I am paraphrasing him, to be fair, in indicating the kinds of responses he has been giving to me on some of the questions I have raised.

At the selfsame time, the Premier will say, “But we want to be able to retain our ability to overcome regional disparities. We want to be able to provide subsidies for eastern Ontario,” such as the ones contained in the minister’s most recent book, where he takes certain slow-growth parts of the province, such as eastern Ontario and northern Ontario, and he says to the citizens of those areas: “We’re going to provide some special assistance for you. We’re going to do something over and above what we’re going to do for the more affluent areas of the province.”

I agree, and under this deal he can still do it. He still may provide certain subsidies or incentive programs for areas that have a higher rate of unemployment or for areas that have a slower level of economic growth.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Maybe.

Mr. Brandt: It is not maybe, it is factual. The minister says, “Maybe.” All those subsidies and those incentives are subject to is review to make sure that they are not in fact unfairly subsidizing a product in a way that will be injurious to a similar product on the American side of the border. In other words, let us put it in very clear terms: If Canada wants to cheat, you will be trapped under the dispute settlement mechanism.

If, however, Canada wants to play the game fairly, and I am sure we do and I am sure the minister would be very sensitive in the way he applied certain grants or subsidies, then the dispute settlement mechanism, as I read it and as I understand it, will not stop you from attempting to assist certain slow-growth parts of the province, and that holds true for the entire country. It holds true as well for federal assistance programs.

So I can understand Premier McKenna saying today, when he gave his stamp of approval, his imprimatur, as it were, to this particular deal, that he had three caveats he wanted to put forward to make absolutely certain that his province was covered off and that it was a secure arrangement as far as he was personally concerned. So he said: “We want the retention of those regional grants to overcome regional disparities.

We want to be sure we are not included in the omnibus bill.” The Premier says we will be, but let us find out, because I have concerns about the omnibus trade bill as well, as do Conservative members and other members of the House at the federal level. The third one was the problem of any employment disruption that might occur, that there be some assistance available if there are industries that are harmed in some way, even to some limited degree, by our entering into a trading arrangement.

That is what Premier McKenna said, because he wants to move ahead and look forward, not look backward. He wants to move beyond the position we are in today, because spokesman after spokesman has said very clearly that we do not have the option of the status quo. We cannot simply sit here and take the attitude that because we have a very substantial surplus in trade with the United States at the moment, it is going to go on ad infinitum, because it is not.

We are going to get blind-sided on the auto pact or we are going to get blind-sided by increases in tariffs. We are going to get blind-sided by a series of protectionist measures that can be brought forward by the United States if, in fact, we do not take some steps, through this agreement or through some other mechanism, to make sure that we will continue to have the kind of access to the American market which is so absolutely crucial to Ontario’s economic wellbeing and to Canada’s future.

Let us put it into very specific terms. Forty per cent of the jobs that we have in this province, or close to that figure -- I would not argue one or two per cent with the minister -- close to 40 per cent of the jobs we have in this province are virtually directly dependent upon our continuing the present level of trade that we are experiencing. If there is a slowdown in trade, if certain of our products are considered to be inappropriate for shipment into that market to the south of us, then that directly reflects upon the employment opportunities in this province. There just simply is no other decision one can come to as it relates to that fact. It is a reality that we all have to accept.

Let me talk about the third option for a moment, if I might, the third option being a multilateral trade agreement with other countries. I made brief reference to the fact that because the world is forming into trading blocs, it makes it increasingly difficult, as our agricultural community knows when it tries to sell agricultural products into the European common market, as our lumber industry knows when we try to sell lumber or pulp and paper into that market --

Mr. Dietsch: Tell us where our wines are at under this deal.

Mr. Brandt: We can get to wines. Could the member tell us where the wines might be, when he has an opportunity to speak, as it relates to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade decision? Now, perhaps he would like to reflect on the decision, which is made totally separate and apart from a free trade arrangement, which would also directly impact on the wine industry.

I stand before the House as one who at a very early stage called for assistance to the wine industry, and to the grape-growing industry in Niagara particularly, because I knew there would be some disruptions in that market, as there will be in the Okanagan Valley in British Columbia. They recognize as well that there are some downsides to the deal.

There is no question that the wine industry was going to have some problems under the GATT decision.

Interjection.

Mr. Brandt: I did not say that we do away with that industry. The member said, “Do away with the industry.”

Mr. Dietsch: No, I said you will give it away.

Mr. Brandt: I am saying that industry should be given some assistance and that industry should in fact have the opportunity to continue to grow and prosper, both under a free trade deal or in response to the GATT decision.

Let me get on with the third option, which I think is important here for a moment.

Again quoting Premier Bourassa from his speech at the first minister’s conference: “Another argument put forward by the opponents of the free trade deal is that we should be able to consider a third option. We should try to develop trade with other partners, with other continents. ”

But this is exactly what Canada has tried to do for the last 30 years under the Diefenbaker and Trudeau governments. I believe that trend even started under Mr. St. Laurent’s administration. For the past 30 years, we have tried to develop this third option, with what results?

We still send approximately three quarters of all our exports to the United States in spite of all the efforts which have been made by various governments to try to utilize this third option. The reality is, we have simply failed in our attempts to disperse our dependency away from the United States and to disperse our products to other parts of the world.

That is why I applaud the efforts of the minister who has taken over a policy which was originally introduced by a former government, the name of which we shall not go into at the moment. A former government introduced a policy of trying to open up trade with China. I agree with that, because trade with China and that billion population that China contains is a tremendous opportunity if we can penetrate those markets. But it still represents a very small fraction of the total amount of trade that we are doing with the United States, as the government well knows.

Let us talk about investments for a moment. Again, I refer back to the comments of Premier Bourassa, because he has the province that is probably most comparable in its makeup, in its size, in its population and in its industrial diversification to the province of Ontario.

Premier Bourassa went on to say at the first ministers’ conference that one of the reasons he supports the free trade agreement is the issue of investments. He said:

“The Prime Minister of Canada referred to a statement that I constantly make; namely, that it is better for us in Quebec, but also I believe in other provinces, to import capital rather than to export workers.

The very nature of Canada, one of the largest natural resource countries in the world, the very nature of Canada explains and demands that we welcome investments; Canada, with a market of 25 million people, an immense territory and a level of youth unemployment which is still very high in all provinces and which could, for lack of investments, force our youth to leave the country, an exile which could be very costly to our future. We can subject these investments to all the controls, to all the necessary regulations, in order to eliminate the impact they could have on our cultural sovereignty or policies.”

Again, what he is saying is that as it relates to the investment environment, we should be encouraging foreign investment and foreign capital into Canada, and again I agree. That opportunity will be enhanced, that opportunity will be expanded very dramatically as a result of a trading arrangement that we would enter into with the United States of America.

I ask the government members, after having shared with them some of the comments of the Premier of Quebec, is the Premier of Quebec unpatriotic? Is the Premier of Quebec insensitive to the size of the American market and the potential for being overwhelmed by 250 million people in that country? Is the Premier of Quebec not concerned about the loss of control that his province would have as it relates to future programs, social and economic?

I say in response to all those questions that the answer is that certainly the Premier of Quebec is concerned and sensitive. I think he is being realistic about all those various considerations, but he has come to the conclusion that he will not lose his sovereignty, that the culture of Quebec will not be impeded or reduced in any way and that the economy of Quebec can still be controlled by Quebec.

Simply because we enter into an economic agreement does not mean you