Hansard Transcript 1987-Dec-30 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Allen: With the recent announcement of the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) that it is impossible to find a general solution to the question of Sunday shopping, and that therefore wide-open Sunday shopping in Ontario is inevitable, Ontario has come full circle in one century. It was in 1888 that another Liberal government under Oliver Mowat amended the Municipal Act to permit municipalities to pass early-closing bylaws at the request of a certain percentage of merchants in a given trade.

Small businessmen across Ontario had been bedevilled by long working hours. Competition demanded that they stay open until there was no business left to do, and they did, with disastrous consequences for themselves and their workers. So they formed early-closing movements to protect the quality of their lives from the rampant competition and consumerism of their time, but it was only when municipalities and the province were prepared to act that they secured relief.

Now this government is going back on all that. It is turning its back on the small businessmen, their employees and the service trades that feed them. It is turning its back on the families involved. It is turning its back on the faith communities of the province, who expect better than buck-passing and laissez-faire in matters of quality of life from this government. It is finally turning its back, indeed, on Oliver Mowat and its own past. Shame.

EMERGENCY TELEPHONE NUMBER

Mr. McCague: Yesterday in the Legislature the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) stated that she was not aware that the 911 emergency service was not available across the province. The 911 service just happens to be one of the most important links for a life-saving emergency response. As a matter of fact, the assistant deputy minister of emergency services in the Ministry of Health was quoted as saying in the Ministry of Health estimates that the 911 service “is something we should all have access to, and we have become more and more convinced that 911 is extremely important.”

Given the life-and-death importance of the 911 service, the Solicitor General’s lack of knowledge is extremely negligent. There have been a number of emergency situations lately in which people have phoned 911 only to find out that their area has no such service.

One of the reasons is that municipalities cannot afford the cost. Government is the only source of funding assistance for 911 service, since municipalities are hard pressed to cover the rest of the costs. I urge the government of Ontario to act immediately so that this service is available to all Ontarians.

Emergency situations, no matter what the nature, are often traumatized by reactions of panic and frustration, but for the victims who happen to be in an area that is not serviced, their immediate crisis is complicated with a high degree of confusion.

Mr. Speaker, can you imagine what your reaction would be if you dialed 911 for some emergency help and were told, “Sorry, you have dialed the wrong number”?

STUDENT FUND-RAISING

Mrs. Fawcett: I am honoured and privileged to rise in the House today to pay tribute to the members of the very special staff and student body of East Northumberland Secondary School in Brighton. I was very pleased to attend, on December 9, the rededication ceremony of their school gymnasium to the Terry Fox Community Gymnasium in honour of one of Canada’s national heroes.

Not only was the gym rededicated but a cheque from the students in the amount of $10,020.50, payable to the Terry Fox Marathon of Hope, was presented to Terry’s mother, Mrs. Betty Fox. This amount was raised by taking part in the annual Terry Fox run, held in September at the school. The run, initiated by former principal Martin Halloran and teachers Hugh MacDonald and David Cornier, has been taking the place of their annual harrier race for the past seven years. In the past four years, however, a grand total of $35,900 has been realized, and this amount leads all schools in Ontario, if not all of Canada, for moneys raised for this great cause.

Betty Fox flew from Vancouver to be in attendance at this significant event. In her remarks to the students, Mrs. Fox praised them for their wonderful efforts and thanked them for their contribution towards making Terry’s dream a reality: finding a cure for cancer.

I hope members will join me in saluting these fine young men and women in the riding of Northumberland, who are indeed an inspiration to us all.

TORONTO CITY COUNCIL

Mr. Reville: Recently I called for an inquiry into influence-peddling at Toronto city hall. Regrettably, the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) declined to launch such an inquiry, saying, among other things, that he had not received any letters expressing concern about the possible influence-peddling going on at city hall.

I happen to know that he has now received at least one letter, and I want to read part of it into the record. It is from a gentleman named Lee Zaslofsky, and he says in part:

“It appears to me that democratic municipal government in Toronto has been gravely weakened by the activities of a clique of developers, their lawyers, and politicians eager to serve them. They have in the current term of council managed to turn the zoning process into a game whose outcome is determined by the amount of money that can be poured into the ‘campaign funds’ of willing politicians. It appears that one alderman raised $17,000 to fight a campaign in which he was acclaimed!”

The letter goes on to say:

“The problem here is that the ordinary resident is excluded by definition from this rich man’s game; and that the future of the city is decided, not on the basis of the needs and desires of its residents, but on the basis of an apparently corrupt financial relationship between developers and politicians.”

Surely it is now time to call the inquiry so that we can put a stop to this increasingly shameless and open subversion of democracy in Metro Toronto.

DISTRICT OF PARRY SOUND

Mr. Eves: I rise in the House today to bring together an old chestnut in Parry Sound riding, the inclusion of the district of Parry Sound in northern Ontario for the purposes of all government ministries, agencies, boards and commissions.

The member for Cochrane North (Mr. Fontaine) is again the Minister of Northern Development. I am glad to see him here. It was a year ago February -- almost two years ago now, in February 1986 -- that the member for Cochrane North appeared as the guest speaker at the Federation of Northern Ontario Municipalities conference, which coincidentally was held in the town of Parry Sound. FONOM has always regarded the district of Parry Sound as being part of northern Ontario, and he then gave a commitment that he would do everything in his power as Minister of Northern Development and Mines to see to it that Parry Sound was brought into northern Ontario.

1340

The Premier (Mr. Peterson), on February 12, 1987, a year later, said to me in committee:

“The case you make is a rational one, and I am not going to tell you it is not.... If you will allow me, I will go back with renewed vigour to discuss this with my colleagues, particularly the three you bring to my attention....I am not even going to fight with you or disagree with you, because I cannot.”

On June 25, 1987, my private member’s resolution was passed unanimously, even by members of the government, and particularly by the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Ramsay), who at that time was the parliamentary assistant to the Premier and Minister of Northern Development.

It was renewed during the election campaign. To date, the promise has not been delivered upon and I look forward to their delivering on this promise.

HANDS ACROSS THE CITY

Mr. Dietsch: I wish to inform this Legislature of a unique project that takes place in St. Catharines at this time of year. Hands Across the City was created by Albert Perez, a local restaurant owner. In its first year, local business people and residents joined in the spirit of giving to provide Christmas baskets containing a special Christmas dinner and a week’s groceries for 132 families. Last year this group helped to make Christmas special for over 300 families.

I am pleased to announce that this year’s goal was to raise $60,000. It was reached and helped a total of 600 families to celebrate this holiday season.

The innovative fund-raising approach taken by Hands Across the City included endeavours such as racketball, tennis and squash tournaments, raffles and sock hops, to name a few.

The community of St. Catharines exemplifies those qualities that make Ontario the compassionate, caring society that I am proud to serve. The motto of Hands Across the City is, “The spirit of St. Catharines...the spirit of giving.” I know that members of this Legislature will join with me in commending the Hands Across the City organization.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Miss Martel: Twice in this session I have brought to the attention of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) the terrible situation facing residents in Dill township, where there is untreated human waste being dumped in a site that is virtually in their backyard. An alternative site has been chosen, but we cannot get the sanitation company to agree to sign the transfer.

Three weeks ago the minister told me everything was all right. Two weeks ago the Minister of Northern Development (Mr. Fontaine) and the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Patten) told me it was all taken care of. Last week the local residents called and said the man again refused to sign the agreement.

I say to the minister, this situation is a fiasco and I hope that in the new year he will have enough courage to do something about it.

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: I have been advised that we have a visitor in the lower east gallery today: Robert Kaplan, a member of Parliament. We are glad he is spending his holiday with us. Please join me in welcoming Mr. Kaplan.

ORAL QUESTIONS

FIRESTONE CANADA INC.

Mr. Allen: I have a question for the Premier with respect to the Firestone closure that we were discussing yesterday in the House.

Yesterday the Premier responded to my colleague the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) and his questions with the dollars that the government had offered to facilitate the sale of the plant and the continuation of tire production in Hamilton. I have to say that we were impressed by the amounts, but to our shocked city they simply served to increase our bewilderment as to the reason the projected bid failed. For example, the gap of $7 million between the parties pales in comparison to the $56 million of aid overall offered by the two governments.

Can I ask the Premier, did either of the two levels of government at any point offer to make up that particular difference between the parties? Can the Premier offer any further light as to some of the mysterious circumstances around the sale that mystify us? Was Firestone, in his impression, a reluctant seller under these circumstances? Was the Cooper Tire and Rubber firm only prepared to act if it was not guaranteed --

Mr. Speaker: Order. A number of questions have been asked.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The negotiations went on for some nine months, as I recall. The honourable member will be aware of that. They were rocky negotiations at various points, frankly. It was not exactly clear if Firestone was a willing vendor. We had canvassed a variety of potential purchasers, other tire manufacturers indeed around the world.

Cooper came into the situation -- I cannot give my friend the exact date but my honourable colleague could perhaps give him more specific details than I could in that regard. But at the end it appeared that indeed Firestone was willing to sell and that Cooper, we thought, was willing to buy. They required financial help from the governments, not just to buy the plant, because the price of the plant was not significant compared to the overall retooling that would be required. My facts could be wrong, but I think it was in the order of $100 million that was going to be required in capital investment to upgrade the competitive capacity of that plant, hence the offers made by the federal and provincial governments.

I do not believe that the so-called $7-million gap was in any way significant in the deal’s not closing. I can refer the question to my colleague to bring up more information, if the member would like. He talked to the president of Cooper today. He indicated, I believe, to the minister that the price was not the problem, that they were not able to make all the arrangements necessary in the circumstances, looking at the long-term profitability of the future and looking at their options, including increasing their capital investment in their Mississippi plant. They came to that decision. I do not believe it was a financial question in terms of government contribution. I believe it was for other factors, to the best of my knowledge.

I should tell the member while I have the floor, if I may, Mr. Speaker, that I believe the minister is going to be meeting Mr. Gorr, the president of Cooper Tire, next week in Findlay, Ohio. If there is any possible salvage, and I do not want to hold out any false hope, then we will pursue this to the bitter end.

That is the best information I have at the moment, and maybe the minister can share more information with you.

Mr. Allen: I thank the Premier for his information and also for the indication that the action has not ceased on the Firestone front. We certainly hope that the minister’s discussions with the Cooper firm are productive. We ourselves are not under any illusions as to the problems entailed in that, but we do wish him well in that undertaking.

Yesterday, in response to our request again for substantial legislation requiring justification of plant closure, the Premier said it would not have made any difference in this case. That, of course, is a speculative judgement and he may be right or he may be wrong. That, however, was not the central point. None of us considers closure legislation as a panacea to prevent all future plant closures. That in a sense sidestepped our question.

I note, for example, that the Premier himself has demanded such legislation in the past, and I will just quote him from the Kitchener-Waterloo Record of April 12, 1985: “If there had been a Liberal government at Queen’s Park, the management of Burns Meats in Kitchener would have been forced to justify the move before closing the plant last October and putting 637 people out of work.”

When will the Premier live up to his word, given on that day and on other occasions, and provide this province with a thorough and rational system of activity in this province around plant closure situations, so that we may assist both managements and workers in dealing with those situations, early in the game?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) has brought forward proposals with respect to protection of the workers in these circumstances as to when the clock ticks. The question is, would a panel or a series of arbitrators assist in this situation? Would it prevent plant closures or would it just prevent people from investing in this province?

We decided, as a government, to take a proactive, constructive approach in this matter, as I think we have done throughout in the Cooper and Firestone situation. I am just deeply sad that it did not yield the results we were hoping for.

1350

What we are doing is assisting companies in a wide variety of ways through the industrial restructuring commissioner to make sure they are internationally competitive and to help them, not only by making available government programs but also by assisting with the problems they will have in an ever-changing world. We think our approach is the most constructive approach to keeping these plants viable in every circumstance that is possible.

Mr. Allen: Just as yesterday, the Premier has referred again to his industrial restructuring commission. One would have to say it is rather late in the day, after the long train of plant closures we have had, not just under his regime but in the previous years -- but better, of course, late than never.

I guess the problem we have with that at this point in time is that we are quite unsure as to whether this is a more effective instrument the Premier has designed than appears to have been the case with the federal government and its appointment of Mr. de Grandpré that the Premier announced yesterday.

For example, I have been concerned that when our city approached his government with regard to assistance in setting up a community industrial training centre not long ago, help was not forthcoming; he did not recommend that. When I approached the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter) a couple of weeks ago about the Lapp Insulators situation, he was interested and helpful but at the same time said the ministry did not have the capacity for initiative in those situations to examine plants and see what their capabilities were, and there has not as yet been any response to our concern for additional moneys for the unemployed help centre.

Can the Premier assure us that the new restructuring commission that he has set up will have the resources and the power to act early in potential plant closure situations and to work closely with managements and labour as they search for alternative futures for their plants?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The Firestone situation, and others, are disturbing to this government and to all honourable members here. I think it has to be put in context. My honourable friend will be aware that some 135,000 new jobs were created in the province last year and that our unemployment rate is currently at about 5.8 per cent, the lowest in the country and the lowest in some substantial period of time. So there is change going on in the marketplace, and again regardless of whether a trade agreement comes along.

I think our challenge is to make sure -- as well as the overall numbers being good -- that we do everything we possibly can in our competitive infrastructure to assist those companies. Obviously, that is involvement in a wide range of things that governments can do: job training, Ontario’s training strategy, a variety of programs that we think are making a difference; and my friend has seen substantial increases in the amount of commitment to that, as well as the increases in education and assistance to industry to restructure. We think that our new industrial restructuring commissioner will have a positive and constructive role to play in this regard.

Let me just give my honourable friend an example, the pulp and paper industry. We tabled in this House not too long ago the Woodbridge, Reed report that pointed to some structural problems in the pulp and paper business. We know that those problems exist and that our job is to work with those industries over the next period of time to make sure that the viability of our fibre industries, pulp and paper, continues in northern Ontario. Everyone recognizes that requires capital investment, it requires the co-operation of all parties involved, and I think my friend will see, hopefully, as we approach these things in a co-operative way with labour, with management and with the private sector, that we can make progress together.

BUSINESS PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT

Mr. Reville: My question is to the Minister of Revenue, it says here.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Too much research.

Mr. Reville: It is the holidays. What is the matter with those guys?

I understand that the minister has been doing some kind of consultation with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario in respect of changes to the Assessment Act and in particular with respect to changes in the level of business tax payable by distillers. That has a kind of connection with the season, probably.

I understand the proposal is that the business tax payable will be reduced from 140 per cent of the property tax to 75 per cent of the property tax. This would have a very serious impact on the revenues of many municipalities within whose boundaries lie distilleries. I am wondering why the minister wants to play Santa Claus with municipalities’ money.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: Discussions about this proposal, and it is a proposal at this time, have been going on for a number of years, and the member knows this very well. We have discussed this with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. Also, some three years ago, a standing committee supported this proposal; all three parties supported this proposal. At the present, it is a proposal and cabinet will be made aware of the full proposal, and ongoing discussions with AMO and such organizations will continue.

Mr. Reville: The member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) would say this is passing strange, but I will not. The chair of the large urban section of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, in which section will be the municipalities hardest hit, claims that the kind of consensus the minister claims to have achieved is not in fact the case. If I can give the minister some examples, I understand Etobicoke would face a revenue loss of almost $800,000 a year; that would be enough money to hire 20 city planners, I expect. The city of Toronto is going to be less hard hit, only about $200,000 lost. Does the Minister of Revenue have plans to reimburse the municipalities for the losses sustained by his unilateral juggling of the business tax rates?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: As I said, this is a proposal and there is no consensus. The member is absolutely right that AMO is now considering the proposal; so there is no consensus. Also, if this proposal goes through, he can rest assured that the ministries of Municipal Affairs and Revenue and this government will back the 13 affected municipalities, as we have always done in the past. We protect our municipalities and we intend to protect them in the future.

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary, the member for Windsor-Riverside.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: He left me no supplementary; that is the problem. However, there are three municipalities down my way that represent about half of the $3.8 million that would be lost in revenue; Windsor would lose about $800,000, the township of Maidstone nearly $700,000 and Amherstburg nearly $300,000. Can the minister guarantee that there will be full financial compensation? In addition to that, would he guarantee something the former Minister of Revenue did not guarantee when the government eliminated property tax on amusement parks, that there will he annual adjustments to make sure that in the long run there will be no loss of revenue to the municipalities as a result of this change?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: As I said previously, 13 municipalities would be affected by this proposal. What we have done is recommend that for 1987, 1988 and 1989 they will receive full compensation. The member knows very well that there exists an REG grant, that is a resource equalization grant, which every municipality receives every year. We intend, after the three years, after 1989, to revamp or to amend the REG system, and these municipalities will not be asked to compensate for the loss of assessment.

As I said before, I think the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and my ministry are very much aware of the consequences of losing assessments, especially in small municipalities such as the member mentioned, but we intend to make good for these 13 municipalities with resource equalization grants.

1400

TORONTO AREA TRANSPORTATION

Mr. Brandt: In the absence of the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton), I have a question of the Premier. The Premier is no doubt aware that yesterday on the Don Valley Parkway there was a traffic tie-up that lasted some six or more hours as a result of an accident that occurred.

I think the Premier is also aware that even on a uneventful day when those kinds of unexpected occurrences do not happen, that parkway system is highly congested. I think he is also aware that there are tremendous costs associated with the traffic delays, the time that the commuters spend on the parkway system and the general costs associated with that.

I wonder if the Premier will share with the House what his government is doing to relieve some of the very serious and critical traffic problems in Metropolitan Toronto.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I thank the honourable member for bringing this question to my attention. I am sorry the minister is not here -- he is ill -- but I will do the best I can to answer.

As the honourable member says, I was not aware specifically of that tie-up yesterday. I am sorry my honourable friend got caught in it, but I am not surprised. We are mindful of the problems with respect to transportation in the greater Metropolitan Toronto area, and that is why a very high-level group is looking at all of these questions with all of these options.

There has been a substantial commitment to Highway 407, which we think will draw some of the pressure off Highway 401 at the top end of the city. I can say that there has been a very high level of co-ordination looking at all modes of transportation, the rail lines, light rail and the trains as well as the road system.

I do not have a specific suggestion. If my friend is advocating that we double-lane the Don Valley Parkway or proceed with Spadina, I am interested in his ideas in that regard, but at the moment we are looking at the overall problem on a co-ordinated basis, and I think he will see some progress made.

Mr. Brandt: The studies, the reviews and the time that all those will take are quite interesting. I would like to add, in response to part of the answer the Premier gave to my question, that almost singlehandedly it was the member for Markham (Mr. Cousens) who pushed the construction of Highway 407. It was the member for Markham who was responsible for that.

However, the 407 construction, as needed and as critical as it is, is not going to resolve the problem that is occurring in the inner parts of Metropolitan Toronto. All parties in this House unanimously passed a resolution supporting the extension of the Sheppard subway, as the Premier is well aware. The member for Oriole (Mrs. Caplan) has spoken out on this point, as well as other members of the Premier’s party who were elected to this Legislature on September 10. They have indicated that they are totally, completely and unalterably in favour of the extension of that subway system.

In the light of all the studies that have been done and in the light of the fact that the transportation corridors in Metropolitan Toronto, particularly along the Yonge Street corridor, are now at absolute capacity, when does the Premier intend to get on with construction of the Sheppard subway?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I appreciate the honourable member bringing that matter to my attention.

Mr. Brandt: I knew it was the first time the Premier had heard it.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: No, it is not the first time. We have heard it several times from the mayor of North York and, I gather, the member’s predecessor in office took a strong position on this question as well. Look where it got him.

I do not want to make light of it. It is a serious proposal. A number of my colleagues, the member for Oriole, the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) and a variety of others, have brought this Scarborough issue forth. A whole variety of them have brought this to my attention.

As I recall, and I am going off the top of my head, the total price cost was in the range of $1.5 billion. That is a question we are looking at very seriously, obviously, in the context of all the transportation priorities in the greater Metropolitan area.

My honourable friend started off with the Don Valley Parkway and he moved next to the subway, the Sheppard line. He is taking credit for Highway 407. At the same time, his colleague is always standing up and saying we are spending too much money around here. I would want the benefit --

Mr. Brandt: In the wrong places.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: If my honourable friend can tell him to assist us in that regard as to where $1.5 billion is lying around, I would appreciate very much his advice. It is very hard to take credit on the one hand for spending all that money and on the other hand to blame us for spending too much. I say that to my honourable colleague, but I do value his advice. I value the consistent advice he puts forward from his party. I will take it into account and give it the weight it deserves when a decision is made.

Mr. Brandt: Let me say to the Premier, by way of reflection on his comments about where the support for the Sheppard subway extension got my predecessor, that his lack of support for the Sheppard subway extension will also get him somewhere in the not-too-distant future. Let me tell him that.

In this very happy, festive holiday season, will the Premier give us a specific, direct, understandable and simple response to a question I hope will be very easy for him to respond back on, and that is simply this: Does he consider the Sheppard extension a high priority with his government? Is he prepared to commit it within a reasonable time frame to the construction of that absolutely vital, needed addition to the transportation system of Metropolitan Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: He asked two questions. The simple answer to his first question is yes. The answer to his second question is no, I am not in a position to commit today.

FIRESTONE CANADA INC.

Mr. Jackson: My question is to the Premier with respect to the announced Firestone plant closure. I listened with interest to the exchange between the Premier and the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie). With respect, I think the Premier has missed the mark. What the people in Hamilton are concerned with is not so much why the plant is closing but rather how the over 1,000 workers are going to cope with the fact that their severance slips are currently being made out and will be received on or about January 15.

The Premier can table all the documents that were requested by the member in this House, but that is not going to put food on the tables of over 1,000 families in the Hamilton area in the new year. These workers need jobs. They need access to retraining. They need specific programs and directions from his government. What is the Premier doing in a specific way in response to the Firestone situation now that he knows the plant closure will be a fait accompli, that severance slips are being made out and that workers will be laid off in 15 or 16 days?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As my honourable friend will be aware, we have been working conscientiously with the union and with a variety of others in this particular regard. We were hopeful the situation could be salvaged and the minister continues to work on the situation.

We have a variety of programs to assist in that regard. I can assure my honourable friend that the Labour people are there working with the union and the displaced workers -- if in fact that happens -- to assist them as generously as we possibly can. We have a wide variety of programs here that we think will be constructive. I can say to my honourable friend that the association with the union and the workers has been a close one and I think my honourable friend need not despair in that regard.

Mr. Jackson: There is room for a lot of concern. If the Premier were to suggest perhaps that his Transitions program is in some way working, we have determined that there are only about 12 Firestone workers who have made application under his Transitions program. That is less than one per cent of the workforce involved here.

The federal government has had a progressive and active parallel program, working with the union while conducting negotiations, but there is no similar program and effort from this provincial government to meet the training and retraining needs of those workers. His restructuring commissioner will not resolve the problem in this situation with Firestone. He is like a coroner who is going to give a prescription for a corpse. The plant is closing. His mandate is not to help plants after they have closed.

1410

Mr. Speaker: The question is?

Mr. Jackson: My question has to do with the fact that in Hamilton there is an older worker help centre run by John Buttrum. They are faced with a $75,000 cap. That is all the money they get from the government. They could be faced with an influx of 400 to 500 workers. Will the Premier increase the caps for the older worker help centres almost immediately, specifically the one in Hamilton, which will be looking after these workers?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I have a list of things here -- and I can read it to my honourable friend -- that have been going on in the last little while. Obviously, this government does not stand by and let this happen without a positive and active response. There are a variety of programs, and those moneys will be channelled in as sensitive and productive a way as possible, if that is determined to be the appropriate approach in dealing with these people. Good Lord, a lot of them have already participated in counselling through Mohawk College. We are working closely with them.

Do not get the impression that these people have been abandoned, by any stretch of the imagination, because that is not the case. Transitions is there for some who may want to take advantage of it, and there are a lot of other things as well. I say to my friend that the various ministers are on top of the situation and working closely with those displaced workers.

Mr. Jackson: By his own statement, the Premier said he thinks the programs are working. The statements from his own ministry would indicate that the programs are not working as effectively as they should be. If he says he is being proactive, I would remind the Premier that he sat idly by and watched the 50 Plus older workers help centre that services Burlington and Oakville collapse less than three weeks ago.

I am asking the Premier again: Will he increase the funding to programs like the older worker help centre in Hamilton, which needs more than the $75,000 cap which he has placed on that program so that it can specifically meet the needs of Firestone workers, approximately 1,000 of them, who will be unceremoniously dumped on to the streets in 15 days?

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked again.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My honourable friend thinks he has the solution to the problem in his simple suggestion, and we are not at all persuaded that that is the solution to the problem.

If he would like me to read the long list of things that we have been doing, I would be happy to do that, but it might embarrass my friend to realize that we are way ahead of him in this particular regard. The ministers and the bureaucrats have been there working closely with them.

I can assure the member that if his suggestion is determined to have merit, obviously we will pursue it, but there are so many other things going on that we think are yielding more results. I say to my friend that we are working closely with the association and the workers who have been displaced, and they have a different view of the government’s involvement than probably he does.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Miss Martel: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. The minister will be aware that his ministry and my office have been involved in a long, drawn-out battle over the case of Miss Gwen Laurence, who suffers from a disorder known as 20th-century disease, or environmental hypersensitivity. She is on a disability pension and has been in isolation for about the past four and a half years. Because of the disorder, she also is required to maintain a special diet, and the foods cannot be bought locally. They must be bought in Toronto and shipped north. So her food bills are running at about $288 to $300 a month. The minister should keep that in mind, because she is also on a disability pension, which does not give her a lot of money left over.

We have for months been writing to the ministry to request a food allowance for her, and for months we did not receive a response. However, recently we did receive a response that stated two things. First, the ministry was going to review this particular situation for people having the same type of disorder; second, if she were to get a third-party assessment, the ministry would look a little more favourably at her request.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Miss Martel: Does she or does she not require a third-party assessment before the ministry will consider the situation and grant her a food allowance?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The answer to the final question is yes. Given the fact that the 20th-century disease, which the member refers to, is one that not a lot of people know very much about, the ministry feels it is valid and necessary that it get advice from people who know more about it, quite frankly, than it does.

We have offered the member’s constituent the opportunity to travel to Toronto, where there is a testing lab that could confirm what her own doctor says and what she feels herself. She has indicated to us that it would be difficult to do that because of her condition.

Our latest correspondence with the member’s constituent is that we are now trying to arrange to have the testing equipment taken to Sudbury, taken to her home, where her needs can be confirmed. We believe that arrangement will take place fairly soon. If it backs up what her own doctor says, then she will qualify for the allowance.

Miss Martel: I thank the minister for his comments. I am a little concerned. There is no doubt that she does not want to travel to Toronto to do this. She has been in isolation for four and a half years. Only recently -- in fact, in the last three months -- has she been able even to go outside and walk around the block in my home town, which is a small town where she does not have that type of problem. It would almost kill her to come to Toronto, so I certainly hope the ministry can do something about having the testing occur in my home town.

I am concerned, though, and I have to ask the minister, why it is that the recommendations and diets of the family physician who has been treating her for this long cannot be accepted and we require a third-party assessment?

In this case, the minister might be willing to have the testing take place there. What about the hundreds of other people out there who are in the same boat and who do not have that privilege? I am asking what he is doing for them as well.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The difficulty, as described a couple of minutes ago, is that there is a tremendous divergence of opinion, even within the medical profession itself, as to whether or not a person has the condition the honourable member describes. On a number of occasions when we got third-party testing there was not, quite frankly, sufficient evidence. In some cases there was no evidence at all that the particular condition existed.

As a matter of fact, we have a number of people in the province right now who do get support from our ministry because the condition has been confirmed, and we are quite prepared to do that. On the other hand, there are situations where there has been rather severe criticism of the action the ministry has taken because of the dubious nature of the confirmation, so we are making every effort to provide third-party testing.

In the particular situation that has been described, we recognize the difficulty of the constituent travelling. We are making arrangements at the present time to have the testing equipment and the testers go to her, and if that is necessary in other parts of the province we will have to make those arrangements as well. But the ministry surely has a responsibility to confirm that the need described by one member of the medical profession can in fact be validated by another. I think that is only being responsible.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Pope: I have a question for the Solicitor General, and it is with regard to the ongoing government muddling and confusion with respect to Sunday openings.

The minister yesterday indicated to the House that only a loophole permitted smaller stores to open legally last Sunday and that there is no reason to worry because the situation would not repeat itself for another seven years. My question to the minister is, what would happen if, for instance, July 2 fell on a Sunday? How would the act apply in that kind of circumstance?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I had trouble hearing the very beginning of that question, so all I can really get out of this is, what would happen if July 2 was a Sunday? That is what I heard.

Under the present laws that we have in this particular province, Sunday is not allowed to be a shopping day, and under the present laws, the stores would not open, unless perchance they were 5,000 square feet or less and had been closed on Saturday or were in some way exempted by any of our many tourist exemptions. We have a list of exemptions, as the member knows.

Mr. Pope: What we are talking about is the statement the Solicitor General made yesterday to the effect that this situation would not occur for another seven years. The plain fact of the matter is that on July 2, 1989, we are going to have exactly the same situation that we had on December 27 past. Therefore, it is not a loophole, as she said, that occurs only once every seven years; it is a loophole that is now forthcoming in 1989, and our question is, what is she going to do about it? The Premier (Mr. Peterson) said he believed in a day of common pause. Why is she letting this continue? What is she going to do about it?’

Hon. Mrs. Smith: The member puts very clearly the difficulties that exist in the present law, which, as he knows, has been on the books for quite some time. This very problem is why we have decided to look to the municipal option so that indeed people can resolve it on a local level in keeping with their own choices for their own community, and we hope to be able to bring that about as quickly as possible.

1420

TRANSIT SERVICES

Mr. Faubert: My question was to be to the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton), but, as he is ill today, I will redirect it to the Premier. I thank the leader of the third party for his lead-in to the question.

Numerous press reports have quoted Toronto Transit Commission officials as saying that the Sheppard subway line, which is the first rapid transit priority of Metro Toronto, has been shelved by provincial transportation planners. While recognizing the various transportation alternatives competing at this time for approval, the Premier must be aware that both North York and Scarborough look to this line to service the continued growth of their city centres and to serve as a northern rapid transit route in Metropolitan Toronto. My question to the Premier is, can the Premier advise or inform the Legislature if the Sheppard subway line has been delayed or has been derailed?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Let me compliment the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere on the very thoughtful way he phrased that question. The honourable member, as a new member of the House, will notice that there are ways to ask questions in the House, and the thoughtful, incisive way he has put it elicits, I think, a very direct response, uncontaminated by partisan rhetoric. It is a thoughtful, insightful question that will provide a model, I believe, to the members opposite as they would want to elicit information from this government.

What was that question again? I was just kidding, Mr. Speaker.

The answer is that it has not been derailed. No final decisions have been made. I am very mindful of the member’s interest in this question and how he has pursued it with some stealth over a long period of time, and I compliment him for that. The government is looking at a wide range of possibilities, but I say that no final decisions have been made. It is under active consideration.

Mr. Jackson: Ask him what his bottom line is.

Mr. Faubert: I know what the bottom line is. I know where it is, too.

As the line has been recommended, after extensive study and debate by Metropolitan council, as the first priority, can the Premier assure that it continues as a first priority for subway construction in Metropolitan Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I can give the honourable member that assurance, but again, I cannot give him a specific date on if and when construction will begin or how it relates to the other things. But it is all under active study at the moment, and we accept that it is the first priority of the Metropolitan area in terms of subway transportation.

NURSES’ LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question for the Minister of Health. The minister will be aware that the nurses in the Metro Windsor-Essex County Health Unit have now been on strike for nearly a month. She will also realize that this is the second time they have been on strike, both the last set of negotiations and this set of negotiations, and that there are mandatory programs under the Health Protection and Promotion Act that must be carried out by the public health units. What is the minister doing, since it is obvious that her ministry is a party to negotiations in terms of funding, to solve this dispute?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: First let me correct the member on one misconception, and that is that we are a party to the dispute. In fact, the Ministry of Health is not a party to the dispute. This is a local labour matter and I fully expect that the local representatives will resolve this in a mutually acceptable way.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: The minister knows that while she is not sitting at the negotiating table, 75 per cent of the funds come from her ministry and, therefore, there can be no solution without the Ministry of Health properly funding the public health units across this province. She will also know there is a strike going on in Sudbury at the same time. When is the minister going to take a look specifically at the Windsor-Essex problem, understanding that we have now had several years of labour-management problems that are severely disrupting necessary services to the people of our community? When is the minister going to intervene and solve this problem so the people of our community get properly served?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Let me say from my own experience, as someone who has sat on a local board of health, that I think it is important to note that local boards of health are autonomous bodies. Under the Health Protection and Promotion Act they are responsible for salary negotiations with their own employees. It is very important to note this. The ministry does watch and monitor, but we want to ensure that a locally negotiated solution is permitted to happen without interference from members of this Legislature.

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. Harris: I have a question for the Minister of Northern Development. The last time I asked the minister about free trade, he had not read the report that was done by his own government. It shocked me that he was not involved in the writing of it, but he had not even read it.

When I asked as well about unorganized parts of the province with a view to Sunday shopping, I was shocked that the cabinet knew nothing about the implications of its decision on northern Ontario.

A number of people in northern Ontario -- people in the steel industry, in the mining industry, in the pulp and paper industry -- are questioning whether the Minister of Northern Development is representing their interests, whether he in fact is speaking up for the north with his cabinet colleagues.

I would like to ask the minister today if he agrees with the Premier (Mr. Peterson) that free trade with the United States does nothing for northern Ontario.

L’hon. M. Fontaine: Je tiens à remercier le député de Nipissing de sa question. Je lui réponds que j’appuie tout ce que le premier ministre dit sur le libre-échange. La raison c'est que ce n’est pas un bon accord pour la province de l’Ontario.

Une voix: Le Nord, le Nord.

L’hon. M. Fontaine: Quant au Nord de l’Ontario, sur ce sujet, j’ai à dire que j’ai écouté les présentations des différentes personnes -- les pâtes et papiers, les moulins à scie -- et il n’y en a pas une qui m’ait convaincu que cet accord soit bon pour le Nord de l’Ontario non plus.

Mr. Harris: The minister obviously has not been listening to the pulp and paper industry; he has not been listening to the mining industry. He has not been listening to those industries in northern Ontario, and they are getting concerned that he is not representing their interests.

By way of supplementary, the people in the economic development departments of cities all across northern Ontario are also questioning whether in fact they have a minister to speak up for northern Ontario. These economic development departments have been working actively over the last two or three years to attract investment from Pacific Rim companies and from European companies to come and locate in northern Ontario -- like Shadwood Industries, which announced it would come to North Bay.

The main attraction for all of them is access to the North American market. Without that access, none of those companies will consider coming to Ontario, let alone northern Ontario. What is the minister doing to represent their interests with his cabinet colleagues as to what this deal means for northern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: First of all, I would like to remind the member for Nipissing that there is no guarantee of access with free trade.

Mr. Jackson: You can’t see the forest for your own trees.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: Secondly, I talked with Frank Hess yesterday for about half an hour. He did not mention to me what the member is talking about. I met with other people from those councils he is talking about, and they did not say a word to me about this. They are all after me to get more money for development.

Mr. Jackson: They have been talking to a brick wall.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: I would like to ask the member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson) to shut up for a while because I am talking. He is always interfering when I speak.

I would like to remind the member for Nipissing of one thing about free trade. I was in Thunder Bay and the pulp and paper people were talking about access and about what they could do. But it is funny, when they were negotiating their union contract, they were saying they were getting too much competition from the southern United States and the pulp mill there, so they are talking out of both sides of their mouths, too.

Some hon. members: Oh?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: That is true. On one side, they say they can compete; and on the other side, when they talk with the union, they say they cannot compete. I think they have free trade already in pulp and paper. They have nothing to worry about.

Mr. Jackson: They already have free trade, is that it?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: There is no guarantee that free trade will help the pulp and paper industry and the fine paper industry. The fine paper industry, with that deal, will be in trouble too.

1430

FRUIT AND VEGETABLE INDUSTRY

Mr. Owen: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. In the south end of my riding of Simcoe Centre is the town of Bradford. Bradford is surrounded by a rich agricultural area, including the Holland Marsh. The farmers in that area have --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Maybe it is rest time.

Mr. Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: You may think it is appropriate or you may not, but the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Fontaine) suggested that one of my colleagues should, I think the quote was, “shut up.” I am not sure if that is appropriate or parliamentary.

Interjections.

Mr. Harris: Obviously, the members of the Liberal Party think that is appropriate. I am asking you, Mr. Speaker, if you do.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind all members of standing order 24(b). I am sure you are all aware of what 24(b) states, that no member shall interrupt another member, period. The member for Simcoe Centre.

Mr. Owen: In the south end of my riding of Simcoe Centre is located the town of Bradford. There is a rich agricultural area around that town, including part of the Holland Marsh. The farmers in that area have come to me increasingly over the last number of months. They are saying that they are concerned about the ramifications of free trade for them. They point out that, because of geography, their growing season is shorter and that their labour costs and their energy costs are higher than those of their competitors in the United States.

They feel that their area of expertise and production is in jeopardy. They want to know whether the minister has discussed this with the federal Minister of State and what is going to happen to them, if their worst fears are going to reach fruition. What is going to happen after January 2 if this deal is signed?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I fully appreciate the concern that the honourable member has for the fruit and vegetable industry, as I have met with producer representatives, as I have with processors since early 1986 on this issue. Indeed, I met for several hours with the producers of the marketing boards and associations in November 1987.

I can say to the honourable member that the fruit and vegetable industry is very concerned about the Canada-US free trade agreement. For many producers there is a real scepticism about the benefits and the so-called safeguards in this agreement. There is a very real worry that, without efficient protection, entire segments of the industry could well be lost to cheaper US imports.

It is my ministry’s preliminary estimate that the greatest adverse impact of this free trade agreement is on the fruit and vegetable industry. The elimination of tariffs, even with widely doubted snapback safeguards, will leave this industry, which is a unique Ontario heritage, vulnerable to United States imports.

I pass that message on to my federal counterpart in Ottawa. I have done --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Owen: In the town of Bradford itself, there are a number of factories which are processing, packaging and looking after the distribution of the vegetables which come off the marsh. The factories employ mainly first-generation Portuguese. There are no other factories which would be able to employ them in the area. They do not have the training and education to go into other areas in the city. They have come to me. They are concerned about their future. If the farm industry itself is going to be hurt, so will their jobs and their potential for employment, so the people of the town of Bradford are asking what is going to happen to them in the event free trade is pursued.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: They have every reason to be concerned, as the processing industry is concerned, unless the federal government puts into place the necessary safeguards and unless it is prepared to add to the import control lists the various products that are processed in this country. To this point in time, the federal government has not indicated in any way, shape or form what kind of safeguards it is going to put in place for the producers in the fruit and vegetable industry and for the processors in the industry.

They have every right to be concerned, and that is the reason we have this resolution before the House today, to express our discontent with this free trade agreement. I am surprised that the members opposite who profess to know something about the agriculture and food industry, who I might say know very little when I listen to the conversations that are going on within this very Legislature --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Harris: Oh, shut up.

Mr. Jackson: Oh, shut up.

Mr. Brandt: Why don’t you speak in the House if you know so much? When are we going to hear you talk?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr. Allen: I have a question to the Minister of Community and Social Services on a matter that we touched on in passing yesterday. The minister will remember that last month Divisional Court in this province ruled that a single mother in Thunder Bay was entitled to family benefits for her son who was under 18 years of age and unemployed and who was at the same time not attending school. The minister will remember the decision rested on the absence of the adjective “dependent” in the particular clause in the regulations and that the result of the decision meant that if the ministry changed this regulation, this single mother would not receive in future the $100 the court said she was entitled to feed and clothe her three children.

The minister must realize that such parents are responsible for their support according to the Family Law Act. Will the minister assure this House that his officials will not respond to this judicial decision in a mean-minded and bureaucratic fashion by amending the regulations so as to exclude dependents who cannot find work and who do not go to school?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The reason for the term “dependent children” is to encourage these young people and their families to have their sons and daughters in school or in a training program of some kind or working. Just as with any other family in Ontario, incentives and encouragements are necessary. I do not in any way want to single out a single-parent family. I have rather grave reservations in deleting the term “dependent child.” I think we would thwart the whole purpose of that particular piece of legislation.

As the honourable member is perhaps aware, the legislation itself does include the term “dependent children.” The particular case he refers to was brought up because a regulation omitted the term and in fact it should be in the regulations in order to correspond with the legislation. I am quite prepared to review the situation, given the particular case that has been brought to our attention, but again I point out to the member that I think there are good reasons for it being there. Knowing the cycle that can sometimes develop within families, I think it is wise for us to encourage young people from single-parent families, as from all families, to get a good education or training for a job.

1440

Mr. Allen: There is no question that those incentives are necessary and that circumstances should facilitate training, education or productive work as those are possible. What one does find is that there are circumstances in which that does not work out in particular cases. I am happy to hear the minister say he will review that very carefully and not arbitrarily and quickly move to automatically plug that loophole, because I cannot really believe he would want to wipe out $100 of income for a family trying to support its children.

Mr. Speaker: The question is?

Mr. Allen: If I can press him a little bit further on this question, because there are some considerations there too, will the minister admit that these parents are in a no-win situation by being required by law to support their children who are under 18 but not being given the financial means to do so and in fact are penalized for keeping such children, as $40 is deducted from their --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I am sorry, I did not hear the latter part of the question so l will respond to the former part. Let there be no misunderstanding. My sense is that the dependent child part should be left in; I think it is important that we say to all families in this province that their sons or daughters under 18, their minor children, should be either in school or in a training program or working, that it is not to anyone’s advantage, not to the child of any family in this province, for that child to be unemployed and not in school. That is my personal preference.

At the same time, I recognize that there can be specific, individual circumstances that might militate against what is preferable. In those kinds of situations, the staff of my ministry and our various area offices have some discretion to make some individual and specific decisions. That is there now and it will continue to be there. As far as the general principle is concerned, my preference is to have the dependent child factor remain.

FEEDING OF DEER

Mr. Pollock: I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. There are rumours floating around this province that his ministry did not budget any money to feed the deer should it turn out to be a severe winter. Are those rumours correct?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Perish the thought that we would let the deer go hungry. It is common knowledge among biologists that it is not a good practice to decide that you are going to feed deer at any time; that when you take them out of their natural habitat they do not reproduce and are not as healthy as they are when left to their own resources.

I want to share with the member the fact that if and when there is any kind of threat to the herd that would require feeding, it will take place. I want to reassure him that that is very important.

Another thing I would like to share with the members, particularly of his party, is that in the past two and a half years or so the deer herd, the moose herd and all our wildlife have been returning as they had not been for 40-odd years. I am very pleased to say that next year Santa will have all the deer he needs to deliver all the presents to the people across the great province of Ontario. I think that is a significant and important thing we do, that we maintain the strength of that herd for that very important purpose.

MOTION

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Conway moved that notwithstanding any standing order, tomorrow, Thursday, December 31, 1987, private members’ business not be considered and that routine proceedings commence at 10 a.m. and that the House continue to sit through the luncheon recess.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES (CONTINUED)

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

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I am most pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this most important debate on an issue that is of vital importance to the future of not only this province but also this country.

I think it is time that we spoke on a more serious and substantive note than some of the debates I have listened to over the last few days. Some of the debates have been most embarrassing to many of the members of this Legislature. I would hope that as time goes on, and as we continue this debate on this most important resolution that we will have far more thought, consideration and research put behind the comments that the members will be making over the next week or so.

I do speak from facts and figures which have been garnered not only by my own ministry staff but also by representatives of the various sectors of the agriculture and food industry, whom I have met on a continuing basis since early 1986, when this issue first surfaced. So I can say that I am speaking on behalf of the agriculture and food industry when I make my comments this afternoon.

It is important for me to take a few minutes to set the record straight by correcting some of the erroneous claims being foisted on the public by Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and his cabinet as well as by his supporters on the other side of this Legislature.

The Tories, on the other side of the House, seem to think that we will be able to buy cheaper food because of this free trade deal. Furthermore, they seem to think that would be a good thing. They believe this deal is the best thing since sliced bread. This is typical of the total lack of understanding and sensitivity to the agricultural community shown by the Progressive Conservative Party both here and in Ottawa.

Let me start by saying it is very unlikely that we will see any significant decreases in the price of food to Ontario consumers under this trade agreement. Indeed, last week an economist with the Consumers’ Association of Canada indicated that few benefits to consumers would result from this agreement. As the Ontario Minister of Agriculture and Food, I joined our farm groups in putting so much pressure on the federal government and the trade negotiators that they could not dismantle the supply management system, which I might say has worked so well and has brought a good deal of stability to our turkey, chicken, egg and milk industries in Canada.

In today’s Globe and Mail there is a very positive article on the success and international appeal of Canada’s marketing board system, the same system that will be undermined by this agreement.

Mr. Villeneuve: And it stays in place. It stays in place, reinforced.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: The honourable member says it stays. Let me quote from an article in one of the leading Toronto papers. In his list of what Canada achieved in the free trade deal, Prime Minister Brian Mulroney told Parliament -- and I quote -- ”We wanted to maintain agricultural marketing boards and they have been maintained,” but he did not say for how long. If Ottawa’s commitment to eliminate the two-price wheat policy suggests anything, it is that the days of agricultural marketing boards are numbered as well.

I would also advise the members across the hall to read the speech that Sylvia Ostry gave not too long ago in which she said, “In this round of GATT, article 11, whether we like it or not, is on the bargaining table.” So let us not think that the marketing boards are not under considerable jeopardy not only with this free trade agreement with the United States but also possibly under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade negotiations.

1450

Supply management, which allows duly elected marketing boards to control price and production, has been a great benefit to both producers and consumers. For producers, it has taken a lot of the ups and downs out of the agricultural business and resulted in a steady and usually reasonable return on investments. For consumers, it has meant a steady supply of quality produce at a reasonable price. It has helped to remove the wild fluctuations in prices that used to occur because of occasional shortages or oversupply situations.

The free trade agreement does affect the supply management system by increasing the amount of chicken, turkey and eggs that may be imported into Canada. It will allow the level of chicken imports from the United States to increase to 7.5 per cent of the domestic market from the current level of 6.3 per cent. For turkeys, the imports will increase to 3.5 per cent from the current level of two per cent. For eggs, imports will increase to 1.6 per cent from 0.67 per cent.

The free trade deal may also have a serious negative impact on certain other areas relating to our supply management system. For example, there is now a tariff on the import of ice cream and yoghurt. This tariff will be removed and it is still unclear whether the federal government will move to protect this important sector of the industry by placing quotas on imports of these two items under the import permit system. This is a request that has been made by the food processors, the dairy industry and the agriculture and food sectoral advisory group on international trade.

There are also concerns about what will happen to companies that make food products such as chicken pot pies. These people could be caught in a bad bind if the federal government does not act to put these products on the import control list. To this point in time, we have not seen any activity on the part of the federal government to add these products to the import control list or to put into place other safeguards that our supply management systems need.

These changes in the supply management system were made despite the fact that the federal Minister of Agriculture promised that supply management was not on the bargaining table during the free trade negotiations. The fact of the matter is it was on the table, despite what the Prime Minister of this country told us.

From the first day I heard that the federal government was going to negotiate a free trade deal with the United States, I was concerned about the impact that such a deal would have on agriculture. So the first thing I did was set up a series of consultation meetings with Ontario producers and processors. These meetings took place over the almost two years that negotiations were taking place. From these meetings I gathered the concerns of our producers and our processors and ensured that they were known by the federal government and by the trade negotiators.

I met with my federal counterpart and my officials met with officials of the trade negotiator’s office on numerous occasions during the negotiations. Our farm and food organizations made numerous representations to the various people involved in the free trade negotiations. Despite all of these efforts, the final free trade agreement falls far short of what one could reasonably expect.

One of the major reasons for entering the free trade negotiations in the first place was to gain security of access to the American market. Like many other sectors of our economy, our farmers know at first hand about the protectionist sentiment that has swept across the United States. Our producers were hit with a countervail against live hogs and a countervail against cut flowers and, yes, actions were started against beef.

We were also hit by various unfair nontariff barriers, so it was reasonable to expect that any free trade deal would include some protection against unfair trade actions against our producers. But the final free trade deal will do absolutely nothing to stop groups in the United States from launching countervail action against our producers in the future. So much for security of access to the United States market.

The agreement would not have stopped the pork countervail or solved the potash dispute. We can also take very little comfort in the vague and general language of the so-called standstill provision, which calls for both sides to exercise discretion and take into account each other’s interests in the use of any export subsidy on agricultural goods.

The Americans have already thumbed their noses at the spirit of that provision by offering heavily subsidized farm products to Russia, China and India, products which Canadian grain farmers are able to sell to these markets, but not at those subsidized prices.

It is interesting to compare the American and Canadian actions in dealing with their respective wheat producers. The Americans ignore the free trade agreement and continue to help their farmers by subsidizing wheat exports to the Soviet Union. On the other hand, the Canadian government recently announced it will end the two-price wheat system in Canada because of the free trade deal.

The two-price wheat system has worked well for Ontario wheat producers. This policy benefits our producers relatively more than it does western producers simply because about one third of Ontario wheat goes to the domestic market. In contrast, less than 10 per cent of western wheat goes to the domestic market. The income loss to Ontario growers represents about 25 per cent of the farm cash receipts for wheat, compared to less than 10 per cent for Canadian growers as a whole. The bottom line is that the elimination of the two-price system will cost farmers in Ontario about $30 million.

Sitting in this Legislature, it is easy to lose sight of what $30 million means across the Ontario countryside. I can tell members it means a lot to a lot of wheat producers, who are already being severely squeezed because of the international trade war in agriculture. Furthermore, the elimination of import controls for wheat, barley and oats as soon as support levels in both countries are equivalent raises concerns about whether Canada will be able to maintain its quality grading system.

Some of the Conservatives in the House would say that the dispute settlement mechanism addresses some of the concerns I have been raising. To that I say, utter nonsense. The panel would be empowered to determine only whether these antidumping and countervail rulings are consistent with US law and regulation. The panel would look only at whether the US law has been applied properly. It would not be able to look at whether the US law itself is fair. The panel would merely replace the United States courts as the final forum to enforce the same US trade laws that have been used against us in the past. So I say, big deal. If this is the strong point of the deal, then it is a very weak deal indeed.

I do not like being the one to stand here and present these grim scenarios, but this is exactly the type of development the Ontario government has been warning could happen and has been vocally opposing. I was a member of the cabinet subcommittee which held hearings across this province on the preliminary free trade agreement. As a committee member, I heard from grape growers, vegetable growers, wheat producers, chicken producers, processors and many others.

As a minister, I have heard from organizations such as the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario and the National Farmers Union. These organizations are the major general groups in Ontario and all three have made their opposition to the free trade deal known loud and clear. At its annual meeting in November, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture passed a resolution in opposition to the free trade agreement; and in its annual brief to cabinet earlier this month, the OFA again outlined numerous concerns about the free trade deal.

1500

One of the major concerns was the dispute settlement mechanism. Let me quote: “The very best the binational panel can do is rule on whether or not each side has applied its own rules fairly. It cannot question the rules themselves. Given that United States trade remedy law is seriously flawed, the binational panel cannot significantly reduce the cost or the risk of doing business south of the border.”

The OFA was also concerned about the fact that the US had extensively used commodity giveaways to the USSR, China and India in order to capture our market and in defiance of the spirit of the free trade agreement. Other groups have been equally concerned.

I note with interest in press reports that Bill Stewart -- all of us know Bill Stewart, former Minister of Agriculture and Food in this great institution -- is quite concerned about the future of the Canadian chicken processing industry. He is afraid the chicken processing industry could be bombarded with US products such as chicken pot pies and TV dinners. Mr. Stewart is also concerned about the loss of tariff protection on items such as ice cream and yoghurt. I alluded to these earlier.

None, however, have been more concerned than Brian Nash, the chairman of the Ontario Grape Growers’ Marketing Board. I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Mr. Nash for the type of leadership he has been providing during these very difficult days for Ontario grape growers. He has taken a realistic and reasonable attitude, especially since the federal government callously used his industry as a bargaining chip.

Then, to add insult to injury, the federal government agreed to an implementation schedule that was totally impractical. The agreement would give the wine and grape industry no time whatsoever to adjust to the drastic changes that would be brought about by the free trade agreement.

The agreement calls for an elimination of the differential in the markup between Canadian and American wine over seven years. However, 50 per cent of that reduction will take place in the first 366 days of the agreement. Other sectors of the economy get a much longer time frame to adjust to the changes.

It is interesting to contrast the federal government’s shabby treatment of the wine industry with the treatment the Ontario government has proposed for the wine industry as a result of the recent GATT ruling. An expert panel of GATT ruled in favour of the European Community complaint that liquor board practices are discriminatory.

Our first response was to consult with the wine and grape industry before putting our proposal forward jointly with these two groups. That contrasts with Ottawa’s total disregard for the concern of this sector of the economy which is so important to the Niagara Peninsula and other areas of the province.

Our proposal, which we would like the federal government to put forward to the European Community, calls for a 12-year phase-out of the discriminatory markup. This is a much more reasonable position as it gives the industry an opportunity to adjust to the new market conditions.

Other growers in Niagara may also be affected by the free trade agreement, particularly the fruit growers. Together with vegetable growers, our fruit growers are perhaps the hardest hit of all agricultural groups, not only in the Niagara region but also in other regions of Ontario where we have a very substantial fruit and vegetable industry.

The elimination of tariffs, combined with the dismantling of the provincial wine pricing system, may place many growers in an extremely precarious position. Both Canada and the United States provide tariff protection for fresh and processed fruits and vegetables. However, on balance, the elimination of tariffs on these commodities provides more benefits to the United States industry than it does to the Canadian industry.

It is likely that the very large United States trade surplus in fruits and vegetables with Canada and Ontario will increase. The climatic conditions which allow production through most of the year would continue to give the United States growers a decided advantage over Canadian growers, who are at the northern fringe of production areas.

This longer-term threat to the Canadian fruit and vegetable industry is recognized in the agreement, as there is provision for the reintroduction of tariffs on fresh fruits and vegetables under certain conditions during a 20-year period. However, there are two triggers before a tariff can be reintroduced: there can have been no increase in acreage and prices must be depressed for five consecutive days before the snapback provision can come into effect. Here again are the two conditions. There can have been no increase in acreage and prices must be depressed for five consecutive days before the snapback provision can come into effect.

Our industry tells us that the provision is almost useless as it now stands. First, it will not come into effect if we increase production to beat any type of growth in demand, even in our own domestic market. Second, it takes five days of depressed prices for it to come into effect. Our growers tell us that anything more than 48 hours is disastrous.

An analysis by my ministry indicates that over a three-year period, tariffs on 20 fruits and vegetables would have been triggered only nine times under the terms of the free trade agreement. So that means that in a vast majority of the cases where our growers are complaining of low prices, this snapback provision would be absolutely useless.

The elimination of tariffs is expected to result in a broad price decline of close to 10 per cent for Ontario’s growers of fruits and vegetables. An across-the-board decline is expected as growers move away from such crops as peaches, strawberries, grapes and tomatoes; and processors of fruits and vegetables are in a similar predicament to that of the growers.

The shorter harvesting season in Canada results in plants having higher fixed costs per unit. The loss of tariff protection is likely to speed up the rationalization which is already occurring as a result of the declining demand for canned goods.

The adjustment pressures faced by fruit and vegetable growers also raises the issue of whether Canada can maintain more stringent health and safety standards that raise the costs for Canadian growers, but may not protect Ontario consumers from imported products. Fruit and vegetable growers have long complained that they do not have the same access to fungicides and pesticides as United States growers which, in turn, reduces the cost of imported goods.

The agreement has a general commitment to the harmonization of technical regulations and standards. The impact of this harmonization on our growers remains to be seen.

I think members can see that this is not a good deal for our fruit and vegetable growers and is not a good deal for our wheat producers and is not a good deal for chicken, egg, turkey and milk producers either.

How the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve) can stand in this House -- I expect he will be participating in this debate --

Mr. Villeneuve: Sure will.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: If he can stand in this House and support this agreement, then he has been talking to a different group of farmers in eastern Ontario than I have been talking to over the past two years.

It will be very interesting to hear what the honourable member has to say, as it will be interesting to hear what the other Agriculture and Food critic -- and I have never been able to figure out yet which one is the true Agriculture and Food critic -- but it will be very interesting to see what the member for Simcoe East (Mr. McLean) has to say, being that he is a dairy producer, and being that he represents what used to be, and being that he represents supply-managed commodity groups in his riding. I will be listening very carefully to what those people will be saying about this agreement, because I am going to tell them, if they support it, they are selling sectors of our industry right down the drain.

1510

Against the losses I have already raised, you have to stack up the gains that our beef and pork producers could receive because of the agreement to exempt each other from the quantitative restrictions under each country’s meat import law. This provision will go some way towards securing the United States market for Canadian beef and veal producers.

When you stack up these small gains against the larger losses in both agriculture and other areas -- and I do not have time to get into the many other areas apart from food and agriculture, many of which were presented to our subcommittee; I wish I did have time but I do not, I am sticking strictly to agriculture -- I think you can see why this Minister of Agriculture and Food is opposed to the free trade deal, as is this government.

Put simply, this is a bad deal for Ontario and it is a bad deal for Canada.

Mr. Runciman: I am pleased to participate in this debate. I was quite taken aback by the minister’s presuming to speak on behalf of the agriculture and food industries in this province. I know I represent an essentially rural riding, and I am certainly not getting the kind of feedback that he is indicating to this House he is receiving. I will get into that in some detail later on.

My seatmate, the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, our critic for Agriculture and Food, who I would believe quite strongly will be a future Minister of Agriculture and Food in about four years from now -- there is no question about it -- will be elaborating on this in more detail in the very near future.

Hon. Mr. Elston: What is he going to do, move away?

Mr. Villeneuve: I will be following Harry.

Mr. South: You’ll never make it from that side, you’d better come over here.

Mr. Runciman: I am pleased to see some of the government members starting to participate in this debate.

Hon. Mr. Elston: There wasn’t an opportunity before you guys got up to speak about nothing.

Mr. Runciman: There have been all kinds of opportunities.

It seems every time I get up to speak, the Chairman of Management Board is present. I think he checks the schedule and finds out if I am --

Hon. Mr. Elston: I love to listen to you talk.

Mr. Runciman: There is no question he likes me, but aside from that, I have to wonder about him spending so much time in here. I thought the chairmanship of Management Board was a very important position in government. It used to be when I was a member of the executive council.

Mr. Pope: He has proved it is not.

Mr. Runciman: He has proved it is not, obviously, as the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) has reinforced. It was a very significant factor in past governments, and chairmen certainly did not have the time to sit in this House and heckle members of the opposition. This seems to be the prime function of this minister. Perhaps we will start to take note of the number of times he is here without any books, without signing letters, simply sitting here heckling members of the opposition. It certainly raises some serious questions as to who is running this place.

I want to compliment the members of my party who have spoken before me. I have not been able to hear all the contributions, but certainly my leader and the member for Cochrane South and my good friend the member for Markham (Mr. Cousens) made some very worthwhile contributions to this debate, and very significant contributions.

On occasion the tone of the debate has been less than helpful. I think that is reflective of the fact that this is not only a debate about free trade but it is also a debate about process and the way the government has handled this whole matter.

Specifically, I think, though other members have laid the blame squarely on the shoulders of the government House leader, I want to distribute that blame somewhat. I do not think it is solely his responsibility. He is in a learning mode, there is no question about it.

Mr. Villeneuve: He has a lot to learn.

Mr. Runciman: Yes, as my colleague points out, he has a great deal to learn. I think he has learned by this process. I think he is going to be a somewhat more humble individual in the future. I know that is difficult to accept, but we are optimistic. I suspect the bulk of the responsibility for this decision lies with the Premier (Mr. Peterson). The House leader had made an agreement with the other House leaders in respect of how this was going to be dealt with. He had this bomb laid upon him and he had to deliver it, and did so. As a result we have had to go through this prolonged debate.

There have been some complaints about sitting in the House during this period. I personally have no problem with it. In the past, I have always worked during this break. I am not critical of people who take a vacation with their family. I fully understand that and I think some of the media criticism of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) has been totally unjustified. In many instances, this is perhaps one of the few times members can spend time with their families. I personally find the time in my riding, working in my constituency, to be at home in the evenings, like most of the members of the press gallery are at home every evening with their families. Most of us do not have that opportunity.

I work the so-called vacation period, but I do find bothersome the resentment we felt from staff people in this building in terms of having to work during this period of time. That does bother me because if you look out into the real world, most people out there in industry, business and what have you have to work during this week. They have to go to work and I see nothing wrong with our having to do it, whether it is here or in our constituencies. Whether this is a necessary and appropriate time for us to be here and whether this is being productive, I know not, but I think it has sent a clear message out to the government and out to the people of this province that we do have an opposition in this House, and an effective one indeed.

When I sat on that side of the House, I was always somewhat in awe of the members of the New Democratic Party who could speak at great length on issues of the day. They did not usually make much in terms of a point, but they could speak at great length. Our members have proved that they can be equal to the challenge and I believe they have been able to make a few substantive points.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: Name one.

Mr. Runciman: Name one.

It is no doubt a quality, if we want to use that word, a talent that has to be developed in opposition, especially when you are as few in number as we are.

We talk about the government position, getting into the legislation and the resolution and the position on free trade of this government. Some have indicated and taken the position that really the Premier has had to take this position because he looked at going into an election at the end of July, with the free trade question hanging over our heads, as an excellent opportunity to scare the electorate of this province. An opportunist; there was no text, no final agreement. It was, “Let’s get in there and scare the bejabers out of the electorate in this province and perhaps we can win a majority.”

I am going to be a little bit more generous than that. I think that certainly was a factor, but I think it goes much beyond that. I think I have mentioned this on a number of occasions. You have to look at the key players in this government and at their philosophy, their ideology and where they are coming from in terms of how they feel government should function in this province and across this country.

I have said the key players in this government are quasi-socialists at best. I think they were for the most part --

Mr. Pope: Especially the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell)

Mr. Runciman: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: That I can’t be accused of.

Mr. Runciman: I think the key players were, for the most part, quite comfortable with the alliance. Obviously, the NDP in its wisdom or lack of same was quite comfortable in forming an alliance with the Liberals, because they are also very familiar with the fact that the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) was a former fund-raiser for their party. He became a Liberal standard-bearer simply because he felt that was the only way he would have an opportunity of becoming a member of the government and sitting in the post of Attorney General.

Mr. South: When was the last time the Conservatives had an alliance with the NDP, Bob?

Mr. Runciman: I cannot remember that one.

Mr. Harris: I don’t know. Larry, when was it?

Mr. Villeneuve: Is this a point of order?

Mr. Runciman: Is this a point of order?

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): Order. Please continue.

1520

Mr. Runciman: I guess it is a point of inconsequence.

In any event, I think that if we take a look at the new players in this government, or in fact look at the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Ramsay) who crossed the floor, a former member of the New Democratic Party. Within a couple of months he is welcomed with open arms into the cabinet. One has to look at members who worked long and hard for that party who are Liberal in the traditional Liberal sense, like the member for London North (Mr. Van Horne), a long-time supporter of the Premier, one of the first people off the base to support that gentleman when he ran for the leadership of this party.

What happens to him? One of the most capable individuals in that executive council? Initially, he does not even get a portfolio. He becomes a minister without.

Mr. Fleet: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I am wondering if you might consider whether it is applicable now to observe that in standing order 19(d) 2, there is an obligation of the honourable member speaking not to direct his speech to matters other than the question under discussion.

The first approximate five or six minutes of this commentary by the member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Runciman) had nothing to do with the motion. In fact, he is going off on tangents and then on tangents on the tangents. He is not saying anything of any import to anybody, not even to members of his caucus.

It is typical of the lack of useful commentary or even critical commentary that they might be able to provide. The mere delaying of time that they undertake by doing this sort of thing does not in fact assist anybody in this province. It does not assist with even the arguments they would like to put forward. I would like to request of you, Madam Speaker, a ruling in that respect.

Mr. Harris: On the same point of order, Madam Speaker: Yesterday I pointed out to you -- I believe you were in the chair at the time -- that we have the utmost respect for your judgement. We have found that you have brought speakers to the point at the correct moment when it was appropriate. I am surprised by the continual attack on you by members in fact of your own party questioning your judgement. I think you correctly listened to the comments that were being made by my colleague. You realize the relevancy of the tie-in -- particularly the socialist tie-in -- that he is making as the reason for this resolution.

I would suggest through you, Madam Speaker, to the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Fleet) that he refrain from making silly, stupid comments that make him look so bad across this province.

The Acting Speaker: I would like to thank both members for their comments with respect to the point of order. I am sure that the member for Leeds-Grenville is leading up to a point that will deal directly with the resolution, and I would ask him to continue.

Mr. Runciman: I would point out to you at the outset of my comments in reference to this, that I was talking about the government’s position in respect of free trade.

The Acting Speaker: I did not say you were doing anything incorrect. I am asking you to continue.

Mr. Runciman: I am trying to reinforce my view as to why the government has taken its current position in respect to the free trade agreement. I talked about the fact that we have a number of people, especially the key players in that government, who are very much to the left -- and certainly to the left of their party -- and I think would feel very comfortable within the ranks of the official opposition and worked hand in glove with them during the alliance period and felt very comfortable indeed during that brief, but unfortunate, period in our history.

Mr. Harris: Unfortunately for us.

Mr. Runciman: Yes, unfortunate for us, there is no question about it.

Mr. Breaugh: That is the part we like.

Mr. Runciman: I do not think the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) should be gloating to any great extent, considering the fate of his party, which is actually the result of the --

Mr. Breaugh: No, we won.

Mr. Runciman: He has now adopted the position of his leader.

Mr. Breaugh: I have been straightened out.

Mr. Runciman: OK. The member for Oshawa now says he has been straightened out. Whatever means are available within their caucus to get him in line, they have been exercised, and obviously have had an impact on him. Perhaps next year we can see him back as chairman of caucus. We will look forward to that because we know he would do an outstanding job. This will be on Hansard as well, and we will send a copy to his leader in Florida.

I wanted to make a brief comment about this before I got off this point. I was saying that some of the new players in this government as well are very much people whose politics you would call into question. A chap who is usually here but is not here today to talk about a variety of meaningless things is the former mayor of Brantford, the member for Brantford (Mr. Neumann), who we know was a very prominent member of the New Democratic Party.

Mr. Breaugh: He is too far left for us.

Mr. Runciman: Yes, too far left for the NDP, and that is really saying something. But obviously he, like the Attorney General, has decided that if he wants to play a role in government, he has to belong to the party closest to him in philosophy, and that obviously is the Liberal Party. I will talk about some of the unelected people as well. The views of Gordon Ashworth, who we know as a follower of former Prime Minister Trudeau, who trained at the knee of Mr. Trudeau, obviously would be somewhat to the left of the mainstream of the Liberal Party as well, I would think.

I am not held in high esteem by Rosemary Speirs, who is the Queen’s Park columnist for the unofficial government organ, the Toronto Star, but I think Ms. Speirs is a very capable and effective columnist. She wears her politics on her sleeve; that is her own problem, but I think she does hit the nail on the head on a number of occasions.

Mr. J. B. Nixon: A lot like yourself.

Mr. Runciman: I am elected; it is appropriate for me to wear it on my sleeve.

In an article in the Toronto Star on December 16, she said: “From the beginning, Peterson has talked about his determination not to allow Mulroney to sell out ‘the soul of this country.’ He is the defender of the left-liberal view of Canada, on the same side as Manitoba’s Howard Pawley,” -- exactly -- “union leaders like the auto workers’ Robert White, and many of the old federal Liberals who used to surround Pierre Trudeau. They are believers in government intervention in the economy to set social goals.”

I think Ms. Speirs is dead on with that. If we take a look at some of the members in this establishment, I think the member for Durham East (Mr. Cureatz) was talking yesterday about the inability of the government caucus to have any input into the position. He made reference to the inference that our decision was made prior to the final text; but that is totally inaccurate. The Liberals’ decision was made before the final text was released; our decision was not. We indicated when we made a public statement on this some months ago that we were supporting the agreement in principle but were going to withhold our full concurrence and support until we had had an opportunity to look at the final text of the agreement. That is exactly what we did, unlike their party, which, for political reasons and for ideological reasons really, has indicated from the outset that it is opposed to the changes because they may impact on its ability to intervene in the economy.

We are talking about the Attorney General’s speech to the Canadian Bar Association, and this is what Ms. Speirs draws on for her article. She said:

“When Scott says that...the free trade deal represents an intrusion on provincial powers of ‘significant magnitude,’ he is thinking of reforms that left-minded governments might want to introduce in future.

“The free trade agreement, he said, will likely restrict the power of provinces to require upgrading or processing of a natural resource...prevent future consumer protection...will force governments to compensate private companies before they can set up public insurance schemes in auto insurance.”

1530

That to me was a very revealing comment. The Attorney General indicated he had some concerns that the free trade agreement may present some difficulties for this government or future governments with respect to setting up a public auto insurance scheme.

Again, as I have said from the outset in dealing with the auto insurance proposals and the pressure being applied by the of official opposition, this government is indeed slowly but surely moving in the direction of state-controlled auto insurance. Obviously, that agreement is something the Attorney General has expressed concern about in terms of the government’s ability to move in that direction, if indeed the free trade agreement is signed and goes into effect. For once, Ms. Speirs definitely hits the nail on the head.

We talk about the Premier and his own personal views. I think some people, especially in the business community, have felt that we are dealing with someone who has a business background and is not antibusiness. We have suggested for two and a half years that the leader of the Liberal Party is indeed antibusiness and does not agree with the business community with respect to free trade.

One has to take a look at the background of the Premier and not just the pap that emanates from the public relations staff in his office. We have been told about this guy coming up and being the president of his firm, being a great success as a business person. Most of us can become presidents of the firm if daddy owns it. Let us face it: Daddy Peterson owned that firm. We are talking about a guy who in essence is quite comparable to the current Leader of the Opposition. He has been described as a silk-stocking socialist. I think that very clearly applies to the Premier. It probably applies to the former mayor of Brantford as well.

In any event, these are people who have had very privileged upbringings and have lived in comfort. They have never really had to dirty their hands. They have never had to get out and work with the real people in this world. We are talking about a Premier whose father was a signatory to the Regina Manifesto. We have to know where this guy is coming from, and slowly but surely the business community of the province is going to understand where this gentleman is coming from. He is not business-oriented. He is interventionist-in-the-business-community-oriented. He is indeed a quasi socialist, and it is quite understandable, looking at the gentleman’s background.

I am glad to see the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter) present. I am not going to say he is a socialist, because I know he is not. He is one of the few small-c conservatives in that executive council, and he is slowly but surely gaining some significance there. I am glad to see him in that portfolio, to be quite honest with members.

But one of the things that he does alarms me, and I want to put this on the record. My leader may not be pleased with my saying it, but it is the announcement he made the other day. I am not sure how much input he had, personally, in this decision. It was the appointment of an industrial restructuring commissioner -- I think that was the appropriate title -- the fellow who is supposed to look after restructuring in the event of the free trade agreement going through, the losers in the agreement if there are any, businesses such as Firestone closing down and so on. The appointment was a gentleman by the name of Malcolm Rowan.

Malcolm Rowan is a survivor; let us say that. But I personally have some concern about where Mr. Rowan is coming from. I hark back to Suncor.

Mr. Breaugh: Who did that?

Mr. Runciman: I am being asked who did that. I think we all know who did that.

Mr. Breaugh: Name names.

Mr. Runciman: One of the things I take great personal pride in is that I personally did not support that.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Breaugh: I have seen some closet opposition in my time, but this is --

Mr. Runciman: There was no closet opposition. I was very open on it and was shoved into a corner for four years because of my open opposition to that purchase. My colleagues who were here can verify that. My friend has a short memory -- he has a convenient memory; let us put it that way.

An hon. member: Selective.

Mr. Runciman: Yes, a very selective memory.

An hon. member: But you have been able to sleep at night.

Mr. Runciman: That is right, especially given the financial results of that acquisition.

In any event, one of the key players in that whole exercise was one Malcolm Rowan. We talk about the interventionist thrust or the philosophy of the key players in this government. I am not sure the minister had a great deal of say in that decision. Perhaps it was the Premier’s decision -- and I can appreciate that -- or perhaps it was the Attorney General or even the House leader.

Mr. Pope: And this poor guy has to carry the can.

Mr. Runciman: Yes, that is right. The current minister is going to carry the can on this, because this guy is coming from the far left of the spectrum.

In terms of the interventionist proposals the minister is going to have in front of him, he should be very cautious indeed. I would suggest that if he has the time, he call a former esteemed member of this House, one James Taylor, who often recalled how he was mugged in the corridors of power by one gentleman whom I will not name. I suggest that he have a conversation with him. He is a former Minister of Energy and had some difficulties with his deputy of the day. I think the minister is in for some problems in that respect, but I suggest he is going to be overruled in any event by the leader of his party.

I want to talk about some of the people who are also supporting the free trade agreement. We have talked about the thrust of the government, the key players and the background of the Premier and the kind of individual he is. I think the Premier’s real character came out for all to see in response to a question I posed a couple of weeks ago about the increased imports of Chilean wine. We saw how the Premier dealt with that question in a very shameful, tawdry fashion, which was unbecoming of this House.

Also supporting this free trade agreement, and not surprisingly at all, is the Toronto Star.

Mr. Pope: Opposing the deal.

Mr. Runciman: Opposing the deal; pardon me. Also opposing the deal is the Toronto Star. On a number of occasions, I have talked about the Toronto Star. I have been advised by some of my colleagues that politically it is not wise to chastise the media or any aspect or element of the media. In the past, I have not been one to worry about that sort of thing. I like to say what is on my mind and really what is coming from my heart in respect to some of these things.

When I talk about the Toronto Star, I do so with some experience in journalism. I am not someone who has had no experience, sitting on the sidelines. In my early working life, I worked as a reporter for both the Brockville Recorder and Times and the now-defunct Ottawa Journal. I grew up in a newspaper environment. My dad was the managing editor and vice-president, ultimately, of the Brockville Recorder and Times. He had 45 years in the business. Until recently, I owned a weekly newspaper in eastern Ontario. So I have some background in print media.

I try to look as objectively as possible at all of the print media, but the Toronto Star has perturbed me over the past number of years, and not simply because they do not support our party. That is not the reason.

Mr. Neumann: They do not tell the truth?

Mr. Runciman: They do not tell the truth at all in most instances, I am afraid. They distort the truth. They are a black mark on print journalism in this province, in my view.

I want to indicate a column that was written by Douglas Fisher.

Mr. Faubert: Douglas Fisher?

Mr. Runciman: Yes. I hope I have it here.

On October 14, 1987, in the Toronto Sun, Douglas Fisher, writing about Beland Honderich, who is the owner of the Star, said his views are “rooted in anti-Americanism or go-it-alone nationalism; in a belief in the full welfare state, and in Toronto’s ethnicities as model for multiculturalism....

“One man, served fearfully by many, directs the Toronto Star along its deliberate and almost always passionate purposes.... It’s always the instrument for Honderich’s prejudices and biases....

“Honderich may block freer trade with the US. He’s the central blocking force, not John Turner or Ed Broadbent...or the pathetic CLC or Mel Hurtig and his ‘pro-Canadians.’...

“This man has enormous power for good and evil....

“The Star is the biggest, wealthiest daily we have. Its influence and its consequences have been staggering for national politics and policies. Honderich, the top man at the paper since 1956, is an ideological zealot....a rabid nationalist, and politically a social democrat with an authoritarian streak.” Now, here is the key part: “He sets the themes and policies his paper plays, not just on the editorial page but through the paper.”

1540

It is one thing for private citizen Honderich to hold prejudices and biases and quite another for publisher Honderich to propagate them not only in editorials but in every department of Canada’s biggest newspaper.

Mr. Breaugh: How does he do it in the sports page?

Mr. Pope: The Canadian Football League.

Mr. Breaugh: Ah.

Mr. Runciman: That is right. John Robertson, the CFL.

I concur completely with the former member of the New Democratic Party, Douglas Fisher, in respect of his observations. I have seen the way this paper has distorted things over the years. We can just hark back to the 1985 provincial election, where the Star continuously -- not inaccurately but continuously -- portrayed the Premier of the province at that time as a former used car salesman. It did not mention that he was a chemical engineer; it did not mention that he was a teacher. Every story about Frank Miller said, “former used car salesman Frank Miller.” That was a decision made at the highest levels, and the reporters throughout that paper followed the dictates of Mr. Honderich.

They have done it on free trade. Recently on Sunday Morning, a CBC program, John Honderich, who is the editorial page editor of the Toronto Star, was asked by the moderator of the show: “Do you distort your headlines? Do you distort your article positioning and articles to reflect your editorial biases?” Honderich said, “Yes, we do; there is no question about it.”

To me, that was not a surprising revelation, because I have observed it over the years with the Star. I guess the source was surprising, the fact that the son of the owner -- I guess that is who he is; I am not sure -- would publicly blurt that out, and I think he did blurt it out. I think it is an occasion when the Star has been so biased in respect of free trade and this particular issue we are dealing with that the Ontario Press Council should be taking a look at this situation.

The Ontario Press Council was created a number of years ago in response to the federal Kent royal commission, which took a look at the newspaper ownership across the country. This response was to try to police the industry to make sure they were objective in their approaches; and they are not doing their job, they are simply not doing their job. Mr. Honderich is a great man for intervention. I wonder how he would feel about government intervention in the print media. I do not think he would be too darn pleased about it.

I think the Ontario Press Council has got to look at what is happening with respect to the Toronto Star especially. I do not say that all other media are blameless. I think the Premier had a point when he raised concerns about a Globe and Mail headline on a story about the government’s report, the report of the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) on free trade. It happens in other media; but not consistently, not with the same kind of venom, if you will, that the Toronto Star directs towards its causes.

I will give the Star credit for something. It does have a couple of columnists who have enough intestinal fortitude to take a position that is somewhat different from that of the publishers; and they are Carol Goar, its Ottawa columnist, and Jack McArthur, the financial page columnist, who on occasion do take positions that are somewhat different.

Rosemary Speirs? Of course, as I said, we know where Rosemary is coming from. My friend the member for Oshawa was saying the other day that we should have colour commentaries for these broadcasts and he suggested Rosemary Speirs might be a good colour commentator. My colleagues and I had a good colour for Rosemary. It would probably be a bright pink. In any event, she is consistent. We know where she is coming from and she obviously has no conflicts with the owners of the paper.

Another individual who has been one of the foremost spokespersons on free trade for the Toronto Star is David Crane, a former employee of Pierre Trudeau, and as I have described him in the past, a Liberal flunkey. He is simply there doing whatever Mr. Honderich wishes him to do and whatever the Liberal Party of Canada or the Liberal Party of Ontario wishes him to do.

Hon. Mr. Conway: This speech reminds me of the Leeds by-election in the late 1940s. The Atkinson Charitable Foundation of the Star and Les Frost. This speech makes me think of those days. Remember that? God, the Toronto Star got a working over at Leeds then. It is getting another one now.

Mr. Runciman: Our historian in the crowd.

We take a look at some of the other supporters of this position -- they are diminishing and we are seeing public support growing for this agreement. We are seeing support growing for the federal government as well. One of the other supporters of the Ontario Liberal Party’s position and the federal party’s position is one Frank Stronach. I do not know Mr. Stronach personally. I have been asked about his party affiliation. There has been some speculation in the media that he is going to run for the Liberals either federally or provincially, so I guess his party ties are well known.

In any event -- I do not know whether it was good fortune or misfortune -- I was listening to one of the Toronto radio stations coming to Queen’s Park last week in my car. I think it was CFRB. They were doing a call-in show talking about free trade with Mr. Stronach as their guest. I was amazed at this gentleman and his lack of knowledge of what this agreement is all about and at his approach with respect to the whole agreement and the auto parts manufacturing element.

Here is a guy who has made millions. We have to compliment him. I respect people who started at low levels and worked their way up and have become very successful, and Stronach has done that; there is no question about it. But he has been a beneficiary of the auto pact. He denied that on the radio.

He talked about how this free trade agreement is going to result in many manufacturers moving to the United States or constructing facilities there. Someone, a caller, pointed out, “Mr. Stronach, you just made a decision a month or so ago not to go ahead with a plant” -- I think it was in Oshawa -- “and instead you are going to build it in Texas.” He hummed and hawed about that for a while, but the point is that this man has benefited enormously from free trade already with respect to the industry within which he operates, and here is saying: “I’m all right, Jack. I’m OK. Pull up the rope.”

It is the same sort of attitude we hear from Bob White and all those people in Oshawa. It is staggering to the mind. You talk about foreign investment and about free trade through the auto pact. Look what it has done to Oshawa. Look what it has done to or for the Canadian Auto Workers. Look what it has done for people like Frank Stronach.

We talk about foreign investment. One of the members here is always talking about that. In my community, if it were not for foreign investment, we would be in pretty sad shape indeed. We have some significant players in the local economy, Black and Decker --

Mr. Neumann: Watch the branch plants close after this deal.

Mr. Runciman: Watch the branch plants close? Procter and Gamble, which is a major operation in my riding, has advised us it is going to close its plant in New Jersey and move its operation -- I think it is Tide or Bounce, one of these products -- to the Brockville operation because it is much more productive. It is closing a plant in the United States and moving all its production capabilities from that plant into the Brockville plant. What does that say?

Now you look at Warner-Lambert, Parke-Davis, pharmaceutical manufacturers. They are booming and they are looking at expansion plans as well. I could go on. Phillips Cables.

1550

I want to reflect later on when I get into some of the local issues in respect to this, but my point is that the people who have taken a look at this agreement and are opposing it, for the most part, have not even looked at the final text.

I was pleasantly surprised when I read something in the Ottawa Citizen, on December 22, by Keith Spicer. I think he is the managing editor now; Keith Spicer, our former languages commissioner.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Publisher.

Mr. Runciman: He is the publisher?

Hon. Mr. Conway: No, no, sorry. You are right, he is the managing editor.

Mr. Runciman: OK, he is the managing editor. But Spicer goes on at great length, and the bottom line is that the Citizen is coming out in support of the free trade agreement. This is a paper -- and the member for Ottawa South (Mr. McGuinty) can confirm this -- that has traditionally supported his party, and certainly supported his party in the last election. But they are putting politics aside and are taking an objective look at this agreement and the text that goes with this agreement and they are saying, “Yes, it is good for Canada.”

There are some deficiencies; there is no question about it. In any negotiation you are going to win some, you are going to lose some; and, by and large, Canada has come out a net winner in this agreement.

We talked about the opponents, and I think Spicer has really hit the nail on the head when he is talking about the kneejerk anti-American and anti-free enterprise reaction. Of course, we expect that from the New Democratic Party. We expected more from the Liberals, those occasional continentalists whose leader, John Turner, we could well imagine signing precisely this deal had he stayed as Prime Minister.

They talk about what strikes even a sympathetic reader, and he was talking about this book that has been put out called If You Love This Country. Spicer says:

“It is a pity these worthy people wrote their usually impassioned Philippics against the free trade deal even before it was completed. Maybe some could have risen above their free trade in fear and paranoia. What strikes even a sympathetic reader of their pieces is how little they trust and respect the judgement of ordinary Canadians, how little they believe in the deep, stubborn attachment of all of us to all the ways we are who we are. Those ways are the real culture of Canada, not just the novels, paintings and music of the self-appointed vanguard, subsidized by the Canada Council, the CBC, the National Film Board and the Secretary of State. Many of these writers are estimable people. They are intelligent, honest, sincere, public spirited, but broadly speaking, they have not done their homework. They have not read the deal and most never will.”

I think that is dead on about most of the critics of this agreement, most of the people who sit in here and catcall and have been told by the leader of their party the way they are going to vote.

“There lurks in the minds of many of these professional patriots, apart from some specific partisan biases, a veritable Disneyland of neuroses about Canada: fear over hope, protectionism over risk-taking, a preference for the small, safe homeland over the scary grand stage of North America, pessimism over optimism, a love of hiding over seeking, a taste for tribe over individual.”

Mr. Furlong: Somebody said something about an elephant, too. Are you going to quote that?

Mr. Villeneuve: You have no confidence at all.

Mr. Dietsch: You’re right.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: It will be interesting to see what you are saying back home, my friend. I would truly love to go back home and see what you are saying.

Mr. Runciman: Is the Minister of Agriculture and Food asking me a question or asking my colleague? I think he is in a conversation with my seatmate.

Mr. Villeneuve: Identical. My name is not Ruprecht.

Mr. Runciman: “My name is not Ruprecht.” That is a very good point that the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry makes, based on the intervention from the Minister of Agriculture and Food. We have been made aware that the member for Parkdale (Mr. Ruprecht) took some positions in the past election which are now being challenged by certain groups within the community.

Getting back to my comments about the agreement and the people opposing it, there is a good quote in here from the editor of the Financial Post, talking about the same people:

“Margaret Atwood is one of Canada’s finest poets, novelists and essayists. Jane Fonda and Vanessa Redgrave are splendid actresses. All three have become experts on political economy. Now all we need is for Madonna to start lecturing us on monetary policy.” How true.

Mr. Breaugh: She is making more money than you are.

Mr. Runciman: That is not hard to do.

Mr. Breaugh: Let’s get a girdle and try it on for size.

Mr. Runciman: There are certain members of this assembly who might take up that offer.

I want to review some things related to my riding before I get on to some of the matters dealing with the broader issue of its impact on this province and the country.

I have spoken to a number of people in my riding in the agricultural community, which I will discuss, and manufacturing and small business. I wanted to put a couple on record.

Nitrochem, which is a major producer of chemical fertilizers and explosives in my riding, has indicated very clearly to me its support for this agreement. They have taken a very careful look at it. Currently they do not face any tariff barriers on exports of chemical fertilizers to the United States. That is their major market: into the United States. They were advised a number of months ago by the National Agricultural Chemical Association that it had passed a motion at a meeting in Chicago calling on Congress to install tariff barriers with respect to chemical fertilizers coming from Canada into the United States.

So there has been a great deal of concern within Canadian industry, in this instance chemical fertilizer producers, with respect to having those tariff walls suddenly appear in the very near future, which would have an extremely negative impact on the industry in this country, in this province and certainly in my home riding. They very clearly indicated to me that if that happened, Nitrochem would have extreme difficulty in continuing its operations.

Access to those American markets is essential for that company. We are talking about close to 200 jobs. If you have the ripple effect, each job in a manufacturing facility creates two or three other jobs in the service sector in the community and so on. We are talking about the potential of 500 or 600 jobs possibly being lost to my community if those tariff barriers appear in the near future.

Obviously, we can go down through the line of concerns across this province, right across this country, with respect to guaranteed access to those American markets.

Another firm is Bray Rivet and Machine Co., in Gananoque. Gananoque, as I like to say, is the rivet capital of Canada, with three manufacturers of rivets in that community of about 5,000 people. Bray Rivet has grown substantially over the past number of years. I have been advised by the president of Bray Rivet that they have been looking at the strong possibility of establishing a production facility in the United States if no agreement can be reached.

Their concern, of course, is that cloud hanging over their heads at all times that they may be facing tariff barriers applied within a few months, and on very short notice in terms of getting a facility in place and in operating condition in time to respond to any tariff walls that may be erected. They have a very genuine concern that if they are not guaranteed access to those markets, they are going to have to establish a facility in the United States. The impact that would have on the Gananoque operations, I am advised, is about a 50 per cent reduction in their facilities in Gananoque. So again, we have a negative impact on jobs in my riding.

1600

The Brockville Recorder and Times recently did a survey. The Recorder and Times is another paper that supported the Liberal Party in the last election and traditionally supports the Liberal Party. Again, l think they were taking an objective look at this, not allowing partisan politics to enter into it, and were asking, “What is good for this province, what is good for this country?”

They did a survey, talking to a host of business people, industry and the agricultural community. Dupont, a major employer in my area, has a word for free trade: opportunity. I want to put on the record, briefly, something from each one of these contributions from businesses in my community.

“You would be hard pressed to find two people who support free trade more than Milt May and Dennis Hamilton. May is the manager at Dupont’s Maitland works and Hamilton is the plant personnel director. They are like many businessmen who support the deal. They see it as an opportunity to expand markets and create wealth, rather than a millstone which will turn Canada into the 51st state.

“May is unequivocal on the subject. ‘New opportunities depend on access to the United States.’ Neither man feels the Maitland plant will shut down if the deal is rejected by Canada, but in an already tough business environment success will be measured in much smaller increments. ‘The chances of retaining what we have is better under freer trade.’

“Retaining what Dupont has gained is very important to both men. Both men agree that future prosperity for their company and Canada in general depends on how competitive business is. Free trade is seen as another girder in the bridge leading towards global competition, and they are convinced Canadians can compete.

“‘We can negotiate with anybody. At Dupont, we have negotiated two new businesses on site in the last five years and favourable terms for phasing out others. We have quality people. We have to tell our own employees how fast the market changes. One week we will be doing very little. The next week we will be going flat out and the word to switch off might come from Australia. Large contracts shift with a telex or a phone call.’

“They address the emotional argument over Canadian sovereignty by putting it in terms of dollars and cents. ‘If we stop being emotional and ask why can’t Canada and the United States be richer together: chances are we won’t be any poorer; and while Dupont may be a large multinational, the Maitland site is not at the mercy of a predatory American parent. We are a Canadian company with Canadian management. Our decisions are based on our own interests and on global demographics,’ May said.

“‘Free trade is a positive force and complacency among Canadians will leave us all poorer as a result. It is natural for all of us to have a zone of comfort. The problem is, it breeds mediocrity. Extending the comfort zone ignores the global game.’”

That is from Dupont, again another major employer in my riding.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Yes, right; a multinational.

Mr. Runciman: Does the Minister of Agriculture and Food or the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Wrye) want to say something negative about Dupont? If so, I would be glad to put it on the record for them.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: No, we want to hear more about the multinational companies and what they think about free trade.

Mr. McLean: I’m going to tell you that.

Mr. Runciman: All right. Well, the next is not a multinational company --

Mr. Villeneuve: You really haven’t read the accord at all, have you?

Mr. Runciman: The next is not a multinational, it is a company that started in Brockville with Brockville entrepreneurs, Computer Assembly; they see free trade as part of the big picture:

“Bill Fraser is the first to admit free trade does not really have much impact on his business but he wants it anyway. Fraser is president of Computer Assembly, or CompAs, a high-tech concern in Brockville’s industrial park which employs 225 people.

“‘It means zero to us,’ Fraser said, ‘because CompAs already has two facilities, one in Canada and one in the United States, so the splitting was done to deal with market realities. The Canadian operation supplies the Canadian market, and the same for the United States. But the free trade deal will likely increase CompAs’s ability to deal with short-term peaks in business. None the less, I feel strongly about free trade,’ Fraser hastened to add.

“His reasoning comes largely out of his experience in the computer industry. Given its relatively young age, the computer field has not had the time to build in many of the inefficiencies common to older industry. Competition is fierce and global. The free trade deal will give Canada more opportunities to compete with the rest of the world. It is Korea, Japan, even China, that we are looking out for. The United States is a friendly giant next door who can help out.

“He stressed the need to look at the big picture, to focus on the Canadian-US relationship ignores the whole problem. He guessed that 80 per cent of our components come from offshore. Whether our market share is impacted one or two per cent by free trade, who really cares? ‘The deal will not suddenly change the day after it is approved,’ Fraser said, ‘but it is a long-term proposition. The next generation will benefit dramatically. This is an opportunity to leave a political legacy.

“He also thinks it is a way to help adjust psychologically to the way our competitors manage their business. In North America, the stress is on the next quarterly dividend or profit statement. While these are important, Fraser thinks it is necessary to adjust to long-term objectives. The free trade deal will help people think in that way. A year or 10 years is an afternoon for the Japanese.

“We talked about sovereignty, and Mr. Fraser also comments on that. Like many in favour of free trade, Fraser sees sovereignty as a red herring. It is a Canadian way to stick your head in the sand and go for the status quo. He used other trade agreements as examples of where sovereignty is not important. Did the English become French or the Belgians become German when they joined the European Community? There are nine other free trade arrangements in the world. Sovereignty is a nonissue. It is born of fear and a lack of knowledge.

“As far as Fraser is concerned, however, the emotional argument has a great deal of appeal. There is no question about it. He suspects that the issue is going to be decided on emotion and not facts. I hope he is wrong in that respect.”

Since the Minister of Agriculture and Food is here, I will go on to the agricultural element before getting to some other comments from firms in my area. I want to talk about the president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, but I also want to talk about someone who lives within my riding who is the immediate past first vice-president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and, I think, a much-respected gentleman in the agricultural community across this province, Doug Avery. I hope the minister knows Mr. Avery. He has written a series of articles recently in a weekly newspaper supporting free trade for the agricultural community.

He also has some concerns, obviously, about some elements of the agreement, but overall he thinks it is good for agriculture in this province and in this country. Although perhaps we all have a responsibility as members of the Ontario Legislature to put Ontario first, I am not sure about that myself. I think in this case we have to take a look at the bigger picture and look at the country first. In respect of that, I think Mr. Avery has done that. I sincerely believe that our party has done that as well. My colleague was talking about one of the largest egg producers in North America, Burnbrae Farms. I am sure the minister is familiar with it and I am sure he has met the very dynamic president of Burnbrae Farms, Joe Hudson, who is a going concern, to say the least. He has accomplished a great deal for our area, for his industry, and for the community in which he lives, I might point out as well.

In this article from the Brockville paper, Mr. Hudson is quoting the vice-president and general manager, one Bob Anderson. “While the ink is not even dry on a potential free trade deal, one major local industry is happy with what it sees -- Burnbrae Farms. The deal looks all right. ‘It leaves the marketing board system alone,’ said Bob Anderson, vice-president and general manager of Burnbrae Farms.

“The egg and poultry industry is directly referred to in the working agreement between Canada and the United States. According to Anderson, the impact of the bilateral arrangement appears negligible. United States producers will be allowed to ship a larger percentage of their product to Canada. Right now, it is seven tenths of one per cent of total Canadian production. Under the deal it will rise by one per cent. ‘It will have a slight impact on us,’ he said.

1610

“Anderson noted that any attempt to harmonize the Canadian and American egg industries would have required the Canadian government to seriously re-evaluate the implications of the marketing board policy. The situation in Canada and the United States is different. In the Canadian system it is not an economic but a social argument to have marketing boards in order to save the family farm.

“Anderson said that many small egg producers would be wiped out if unfettered free trade came into being. ‘It would be tremendously upsetting. We would have to make adjustments very quickly. It would lead to a tremendous consolidation of producers.’

“This speculation is borne out by studies which indicate a major restructuring of the egg business under free trade. But Mr. Anderson says that this agreement is good for egg producers in the country and good for egg producers in the province of Ontario.

“Anderson said that the other plank of the free trade platform, tariff reduction, will have little impact on Canadian producers. Right now, the tariff is 3.5 cents per dozen . ‘Tariffs are of no real consequence as long as border controls remain,’ he said. With the deal in its current form however, open competition is unlikely. Instead, egg producers will continue to deal with a large bureaucracy in the CEMA as well as the provincial and federal governments.

“Bumbrae is happy with the free trade deal.” That very clearly contradicts what the minister was saying earlier this afternoon.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: You are basing your decision on one producer. I could tell you a few things about that producer but I won’t.

Mr. Runciman: Obviously, the minister has what he believes to be some negative things to say about the Bumbrae farm operation and the key players. I would certainly like to hear those views expressed in the House and on the record. We are talking about a firm that has grown from a very small operation in a number of years, has prospered and has become one of North America’s largest producers.

The minister is implying in the House that there are some negative aspects to this operation. I think that is what I understood and I wonder if my colleagues shared that feeling as well. It may indeed be incumbent upon the minister to clarify his position with respect to this firm. He is suggesting that we cannot accept the word of Bumbrae Farms. Whatever they say is coloured by something; we know not what, because he is leaving us in the dark with his interventions, which do not have any substance apparently other than as an attempt to denigrate the owners of this fine firm.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: You can’t base your decision on one producer. Talk to other producers. Talk to the Egg Producers’ Marketing Board.

Mr. Runciman: We did.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Oh yes, you did. I’d like to believe you.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Runciman: Since the minister is here as well, I am going to divert from my schedule a wee bit to put forward some other comments. I know my colleague the critic is going to deal extensively with agriculture, but since the minister is here and made his comments today, I think it is appropriate to put some other comments on the record today dealing with the agricultural community.

This is Charles Wacky of the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association:

“Agriculture cannot complain at all. The supply management sector didn’t want a deal. They weren’t touched. Poultry quotas are no greater than actual shipments. It’s important for us to have a free trade arrangement. I hope agriculture is mature enough to realize that. This is a great day for Canada. This is what we’ve been asking for all along.”

Here is Gil Barrows, also from the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association: “We have nothing but praise for the new trading agreement. These are things we’ve been working toward for a long time. The agreement frees up the flow of beef and maintains the free flow of cattle in the North American marketplace.”

Hon. Mr. Riddell: The beef producers have had very few restrictions up to now.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Runciman: Let us hear from the Canadian Pork Council: “Our initial reaction is that overall the agreement is positive. There was a lot of concern that we might not have as easy access to the United States, which would have required massive adjustments in the industry.”

Here is one from Jim Wardenberg, president of the Dairy Farmers of Canada: “The dairy farmers organization supports the proposed free trade deal because it guarantees the Canadian government the right to include any dairy products on an import control list.”

There is the Dairy Farmers of Canada. We have talked about the cattlemen; we have talked about the pork producers; and we have talked about dairy farmers. Now we are going to talk about the Canadian Broiler Hatching Egg Producers’ Association. It is from Ron Drohomerski, who is the chairman. I will quote Mr. Drohomerski.

“We would like to applaud the Canadian government for the manner in which the agreement has dealt with supply-managed commodities. The Canadian government has, from the beginning, maintained that producers in Canada would be able to choose the manner in which they market their products. Supply-managed programs, supported by import controls in accordance with GATT rules, remain intact. For that we congratulate the Canadian government and the efforts of the Honourable John Wise. Should tariff removal start having a negative impact on the industry, remedial measures still exist. This is very important if we are to have continued strong investment in the Canadian chicken industry and the resulting employment and other benefits to the economy.”

Hon. Mr. Riddell: You are very carefully avoiding talking about the Ontario boards. You want to talk about the Canadian ones. What about the Ontario boards?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Runciman: The minister keeps coming along with interventions here. He had the gall to indicate at the outset in his comments that he was speaking on behalf of the agriculture and food industry in this province. He is totally off base.

Here is one from the Canadian Horticultural Council. Dan Dempster is the executive vice-president. “We accept that there is recognition of the sensitive market conditions on both sides of the border. We are also somewhat relieved, and in fact pleased with many aspects of the deal. The government will have to look at adjustment systems for grape and wine industries, and we hope the government recognizes the need to work with that industry. But on balance we support this agreement.” That is the Canadian Horticultural Council.

I also have support here from Don Moore, manager of the Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Producers’ Marketing Board, who is indicating his support and saying that if the dollar remains favourable we can capitalize on this United States market because of this deal.

We also have some positive comments from the general manager of the Prince Edward Island Potato Marketing Board. I think we are covering virtually all the bases here. Here are a couple more.

Bill Duke, president of the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association: “I think Canada now has a better chance of retaining current access and getting further access. It is better than no agreement at all. A dispute settling mechanism that involves both countries is likely to be fair and it is especially encouraging that the two countries have agreed to jointly work out trade rules.”

Paul Sim, who is a senior policy analyst with an organization called the Canadian Wheat Growers: “It removes the big club that is being held over our head as far as US protectionism is concerned. The deal provides greater access of Canadian hogs and cattle to the US market and, as such, should guarantee continued viability of western Canada’s livestock industry. Since the livestock industry is western Canada’s single largest consumer of grain, the ongoing viability of the livestock sector will help to maintain feed grain markets for western Canada.”

1620

Mr. McLean: That’s right. We didn’t hear that in the minister’s speech.

Mr. Runciman: No, we did not hear any of those comments from the minister. Really, he did not draw on that many sources for support for the position his government has taken. He just came out with a statement, “Well, I am speaking on behalf of the industry.”

Hon. Mr. Riddell: The Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario, The National Farmers’ Union -- you don’t know what you’re talking about; sit down.

Mr. Runciman: We have often said he is slowly but surely looking like the former member for Lambton, if he stands up there and his hands are going like this. He is getting that way gradually. Slowly but surely he is fuming into that familiar figure.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: That familiar figure happened to be one of you.

Mr. Runciman: I was not necessarily being critical.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Why don’t you admit it? Be totally honest in what you are saying. Don’t be half honest, be totally honest, admit that he was one of you.

Mr. Runciman: He was one of us, but the minister was one of his severest critics in this House, as we all recall, sitting over here getting into a violent rage at least once a week at the former member for Lambton.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: But it brought results.

Mr. McLean: The member for Lambton did more for agriculture in three years than the minister is ever going to do.

Mr. Runciman: I have been advised by people who should know that the former member for Lambton, as the minister, did more in his three years in the ministry than this minister can ever hope to accomplish in whatever period of time he serves in that portfolio. We have been advised that he may not be serving in that portfolio for too much longer.

Mr. Villeneuve: A 50 per cent reduction in market values, a 33 per cent reduction in grain values -- does he like that?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Are you trying to say the government is responsible for the price of commodities?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am listening very carefully and I hear more than one member speaking at one time. That is not in order.

Mr. Runciman: We appreciate the minister’s paranoia with respect to the member for Lincoln (Mr. Pelissero). He has always got to be looking over his shoulder now. We have some degree of sympathy for him. We will do what we can to help him out in the days ahead.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I will stand on my record. I don’t have to look over my shoulder. Just go out and ask the farmers what the record of this government is.

Mr. Runciman: I would have to wear earplugs.

As my final reference in terms of my riding, I want to put into the record some comments. We have talked of concerns about one of the sectors of the Ontario economy, the Canadian economy; we grant that concern has been expressed about the textile industry.

Mr. Dietsch: You sure told us a lot about grapes.

Mr. Runciman: I can sit down, Mr. Speaker, while these conversations carry on, if you wish.

Mr. Speaker: I remind the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Fontaine) that he is not in his own seat. The member for Leeds-Grenville will continue.

Mr. Runciman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity to sit down for a minute and loosen my belt. I have only been sipping on that water, but I am already feeling the pressure. I have even more respect for the New Democratic Party and their long-windedness and their bladder capacity.

I have just been handed something by a colleague which he feels should be put on the record because some comments have been made about the wine industry and, I guess, the grape growers. I know from my own party’s critic that at least one Ontario winery, Hillebrand Estates Winery, has come out very strongly in support of the agreement. They have indicated quite clearly that they feel no reservations whatsoever about their ability to compete with American producers.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Here again you are only naming one company.

Mr. Runciman: I have quotes here that have been handed to me.

Walter Schmoranz, the manager of Pelee Island Winery, says that free trade will not destroy his business because it is based on quality. He has a lot of confidence in the quality of Pelee Island Winery products.

Mr. Dietsch: Ask Inniskillin; ask Chateau des Charmes.

Mr. Runciman: Chateau des Charmes? I was just asked to quote Chateau des Charmes. That is very appropriate. Paul Bose, Chateau des Charmes Wines, Niagara-on-the Lake, said his upmarket wines, such as Chardonnay and Riesling, will not be hurt by California imports.

Interjections.

Mr. Villeneuve: You are backing up, I notice. You are in reverse.

Mr. Runciman: The member is trying to qualify. He asked me for quotes. They say I am only mentioning one. Now I have mentioned three and they are still nitpicking. Obviously they are standing on weak ground indeed. There is even support in the wine industry for this agreement, despite what the government is trying to indicate to us is the case.

I want to put on the record briefly a few points about the opposition position on this. I am thinking primarily of the federal opposition to it and talking about the Leader of the Opposition, a former Prime Minister, the Right Honourable John Turner.

Mr. Wrye: The next Prime Minister.

Mr. Runciman: That is wishful thinking. I mentioned earlier that the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations indicates he feels Mr. Turner will be the next Prime Minister. I just have to take a look at the impact the free trade agreement is having on the polls. The more people learn about this the more they like it. In Toronto, a recent survey done shows over 50 per cent of Metro Torontonians are supportive of this agreement.

It is clear the federal government and this party are on the right path. There is no question about it. They have made a decision and I suspect the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations lad little, if any, input into that decision. He is certainly one of the left-leaning members of that executive council, there is no question about that, at least based on his years as Labour critic and even as minister -- but he certainly could not satisfy the folks to the right; but they are unsatisfiable, no question about that.

I doubt he had much input into this. I think it is the key players and the nonelected people such as Mr. Ashworth and Hershell, folks like that. Jim Coutts, of course, has the ear of the Premier.

Someone told me that during the election campaign, Keith Davey’s car was in the parking lot every day. I do not know whether he was taking advantage of a free parking space.

The Rainmaker: those folks are going to bring a lot of rain to that side before the next four years are over. They are just beginning, and the true nature of this government, the true interventionist, left-wing nature of this government is slowly but surely starting to become apparent. It is going to create some difficulties, not only with the population at large but with some of the more traditional Liberal supporters within their own caucus. There are some people over there, business people, people who have some strong, small-c conservative instincts.

Mr. Villeneuve: The Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) is one of them.

Mr. Runciman: Yes, the minister from Niagara Falls, there is no question about it. Again, he is used to being a rubber stamp. I think he is comfortable having a car and driver. Let us face it. It is very addictive. There is no question about it. He knows he has that guy picking him up at home every morning. He does not have to drive to work any more. so he is not prepared to take those strong positions in executive council; positions that the member for Niagara Falls truly believes in, I suspect.

In any event, we were talking about Mr. Turner and his position on the agreement. I am sorry I was distracted. This is a quote of Mr. Turner’s from June 1984; it was in the Financial Times in 1986. “I believe in moving towards free trade, beginning with our largest market, the United States.”

1630

Here is an excerpt from Politics of Purpose, from Mr. Turner -- page 183 if someone wants to look it up: “If some day we can agree to the sharing of this continent’s water by offering some of our water for export, we might want at that time to insist that if water is to be considered as a continental resource, markets should also be considered on the same basis. We might wish to export water, not for money, as we sold power under the Columbia River treaty, but in return for access to their markets.”

Here is a leader of the federal Liberal Party saying that he is prepared to sell this country’s water, our most precious resource, to the Americans to gain guaranteed access to their market. Look: what are we talking about here? Here we have Prime Minister Mulroney, who has worked out an agreement that is more than fair to this country. He has not sold out our natural resources.

We get all this crying about selling out our resources, but here is the leader, a former Prime Minister, saying he is prepared to sell out our most precious resource, water, for guaranteed access. Talk about hypocrisy. That is the height of hypocrisy. That gentleman is a hypocrite, and I have no compunction whatsoever in saying that in this House today.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Mulroney can’t sell iron ore, that’s for sure.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Let’s hear what the Prime Minister said in Thunder Bay in 1983. Have you got that quote with you?

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): Order.

Mr. Runciman: A couple of members of the executive council are obviously aching to participate in this debate. We are going to have a number of days more and we hope they will follow the lead of the Minister of Agriculture and Food and participate. We would be very interested in hearing their contributions; and hopefully, unlike the minister they will be factual and not take the kind of arrogant position he took earlier in the day.

I do not want to leave untouched the official opposition, the New Democratic Party. I guess we have respect for their position. We have all known where they are coming from the outset. I think it is wrapped up very neatly by Howard Pawley, quoted in the Winnipeg Free Press. When talking about free trade, Mr. Pawley said, “I’m not going to pretend that we have an open mind.”

That says it all. There is no question about where that party is coming from, and I quoted Keith Davey earlier in the day in respect to the NDP position, “It’s knee jerk anti-Americanism, anti-free enterprise.” That is traditional for the NDP, let us face it.

Obviously, to some degree I think it is a growing tradition within the governing party of this province; and as I continue to reiterate, it is because of the handful of key players, the key players along that front bench.

I want to put a quote on the record from one Steven Langdon. This is a resolution passed at the NDP convention in Montreal in March 1987. It was submitted by Steven Langdon’s riding association, Essex-Windsor -- the minister has gone; I think this is in his area. That riding used to be held, I believe, by Eugene Whelan, so it is an understandable situation there.

To quote Mr. Langdon, “New Democrats would also work to try to establish a voluntary trade dispute settlement mechanism with the United States that would provide neutral statistics on trade balances and would assist trade negotiators from both countries to reach agreements on individual problems.”

In essence, he is talking about what the federal government has been able to achieve. I think it has been said on numerous occasions with respect to the current government’s position on this that it has not taken the bigger picture into consideration. They have been very provincial -- I guess that is the proper word -- with respect to expressing their views.

Most famous, of course, is the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology when he made his comment in this House with respect to any deal that is a bad deal for Ontario being, by extension, a bad deal for Canada. There are a number of other comments the minister has put on the record, but we are used to that minister making off-the-cuff comments which have, over the past two or three years, got him into some difficulty.

Obviously, it has not impacted on his progress in cabinet; most of us have to consider that a move up the ladder, especially when he is supposed to be carrying the torch for the government with respect to its free trade position. I think, however, if you got into a room with him and had a heart-to-heart conversation, as a business person himself, someone with somewhat more believable credentials as a business person than the Premier, you would find that he does not find this agreement all that bad. But he is being told by the Attorney General, the Premier, the House leader, Gordon Ashworth, Hershell Ezrin, Jim Coutts, Keith Davey and others that he has to support this.

I want to put a few more matters on the record. I want to talk about a few columns.

Mr. Dietsch: Read from the Toronto Star.

Mr. Runciman: Yes, as a matter of fact, I am going to read a bit from the Toronto Star, based on a request from the members of the governing party.

Mr. Dietsch: He is going to read only selected parts.

Mr. Runciman: Never.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Runciman: The member is suggesting I am going to read only selected parts of this. It is difficult to find anything in the Toronto Star that is supportive of this agreement. It is very difficult indeed, but as I said, there are a few folks who work for that publication who do have some intestinal fortitude, some integrity, and have taken a stance somewhat different from that of the owner. That may mean their days are numbered; I am not sure.

Jack McArthur, who is a columnist in the financial section, has made some references in respect of the positions taken by Mr. Turner, and he is not being terribly critical of Mr. Turner. He suggests that because he was holding back initially in terms of taking a position, he was roundly condemned as being indecisive and incompetent.

“Turner, who on his earlier record would not reject freer trade in principle, was driven to make his opposition more definite.

“Ed Broadbent echoed his protectionist, labour union supporters with cries of sellout, warnings of Canada being swallowed politically by the United States, highly coloured analyses of all the guesstimated numbers.

“No credit is due anyone, but Broadbent is the biggest offender if you rebel at slanted, premature judgement. He and his party offer almost nothing but one-sided, divisive emotionalism.

“This surely means the NDP will be pushing not only to kill the trade deal but also for more Canadian protectionism, wanting to cut back on our current connections with the United States. The party has outlined, as never before, its deep distaste for such links.

“Seventy-eight per cent of our exports go to the United States; and for the interdependence they imply, even if the new trade deal isn’t adopted it is a logical suspicion that the NDP will want to raise new barriers between the North American neighbours and it looks like the Liberals are inclined in that direction as well.”

I think they certainly are in this province and I commend Mr. McArthur for calling it as he sees it.

1640

I wanted to talk briefly about some comment I had from the Algoma Steel Corp. Maybe one of my colleagues can look for that comment. It may be in this material here.

We talk about that party representing organized labour in this province. I have always had a great deal of difficulty with that personally, because if we look at the makeup of their caucus, for example, it is difficult to find anyone with any significant experience in organized labour. I think most of them are teachers now. We have two of them here.

Mr. Breaugh: He is against anybody who can read.

Mr. Runciman: That rules the member for Oshawa out.

I am talking about the NDP and its pretensions to speak on behalf of organized labour in this province. I think in terms of organized labour in my area we get down on an individual basis. Talking with people at the plant gates or talking to people in a pub or talking to them in my office, wherever, the NDP is going to find out that, by and large, these people have no difficulty with this. They accept the position being put forward that this is going to be good for Ontario, it is going to be good for this country and, in the end, it is going to result in growing prosperity and more jobs for all of us.

I would like to talk about these people’s tails being pulled by people like Bob White, the president of the Canadian Auto Workers.

Mr. Breaugh: I have to stand when that name is mentioned.

Mr. Runciman: The member for Oshawa suggests that Mr. White walks on water. I do not hold him in that high esteem.

I have a reference to Mr. White. Here he is representing a group of Canadian workers who have had by far the most access to the American market under the auto pact and he has the gall to wander around the country and lead the opposition to free trade, which would give other workers -- brothers and sisters, as he has the nerve to call them -- something of the same degree of access that he has had in his industry. Look how Oshawa has prospered.

Mr. Breaugh: Brilliant political leadership, that is what did it.

Mr. Runciman: I get back to this party and people like Mr. White trying to tell us that they speak on behalf of organized workers in this province. That is a load of baloney; it always has been a load of baloney and it has been borne out by election results. Any election result you look at, if you do a breakdown of where the union vote is going, those folks do not get the majority of that vote. Either it goes to our party, or I think in the last case it probably went to the Liberal Party of Ontario.

Mr. Breaugh: Not in Oshawa, it didn’t.

Mr. Runciman: Maybe not in Oshawa. Hopefully, that will change in the future; hopefully, they will see the light in Oshawa.

When I was talking about the Toronto Star, I talked about some of my background in journalsism. When I talk about organized labour, I have some experience there as well. I served as a union president for a couple of years, and I served as a contract negotiator, so I have some experience in that field as well, probably significantly more than most members of that caucus. So I feel reasonably comfortable in talking about the fact that their pretension to try to be the spokespeople for organized labour in this province with respect to the benefits or the lack of benefits of free trade is a complete, total farce.

That is supported by an article in the Toronto Star of December 22. Again, it is a story from Sault Ste. Marie:

“Mirko Eljuga, a coal operator at Algoma Steel Corp. in Sault Ste. Marie, knows nothing about the details of the Canada-US free trade deal but thinks ‘it’s probably going to be OK.’

“His judgement, tentative but positive, catches the prevailing mood in the northern Ontario city of 80,000. Many Sault area workers are greeting the free trade agreement as a welcome stepping stone to more job security.

“In reaching their verdict, Eljuga and other members of the United Steelworkers have ignored senior union leaders and harkened to the pro free trade arguments of Algoma Steel and other major employers, notably Hamilton-based Dofasco Inc. and Stelco Inc.”

I will put some of the Algoma quotes on the record as well.

“Algoma spokesman Bill Kissick says that, in the absence of the new Canada-US pact, Canadian steel exports would fall victim to tough US tariffs and quotas some time in 1989, if not sooner.

“‘The deal to be signed on January 2 in our interpretation precludes this from happening, and that’s our number one priority,’ Kissick says.”

Now they are talking about the senior union folks. They say, “Up in the Sault, however, the union’s alarmed analysis of the cheap-labour threat under freer global trade is not considered relevant to the Canada-US deal. Workers there focus on immediate tactical threats to their livelihood generated by their higher-priced co-unionists in the United States.

“‘We have a lot at stake,’ explains local Steelworker president Dennis Abernot.

“‘When you lose a job here you don’t walk down the street and get another one. Toronto is 435 miles down the road. Thunder Bay is 430 miles the other way.’

“Abernot, a skilled local union politician, says the Canada-US deal is good for Canadian steel and good for the Sault.

“‘If there were no deal, I believe the US would tighten the screws on us,’ he says. ‘When there’s a glimmer of light, we’ve got to grab on to it.’”

I am going to put a few more of these quotes on the record, because I think they reinforce what I was saying in respect to the position being taken by the New Democratic Party and senior union officials in this province. It is not a position that is in the best interests of organized labour in this province and it is not a position that, I suspect, would be or is supported by the majority of organized labour in this province.

Mr. White is a member of the executive, I believe, of the New Democratic Party, and one has to wonder whether he is always speaking on behalf of his workers or whether he is speaking in support of the views of Mr. Broadbent. Those are some issues we would like to see clarified. I think we all have to be very suspicious of anyone who uses intellectual terrorism to disguise facts.

These are some of the other quotes I would like to put on the record. This is from Dofasco Inc. “The optimism about direct exports extends to major domestic steel markets in the oil and gas sectors, in manufacturing and in construction.

“Algoma, for example, sees no serious free trade losers among its main customers and is finally in a position to realize profits from its investment in a new tube mill.

“‘Anything that’s good for western energy is good for us,’ Kissick says.

“The biggest user of steel is the auto and auto parts sector, and here Canadian steel executives see stability. In their view the Canada-US auto pact was threatened by the hostile attitudes of US auto parts makers and the United Auto Workers in Detroit. Now, they say, steel’s Ontario auto markets are secured by the new auto sector arrangements within the larger trade deal.”

The Dofasco representative “who doesn’t like even to contemplate the possible abrogation of the deal by Liberals and New Democrats, likens the current free trade debate to the controversy over the Canada-US auto pact in 1965.” We have heard a great deal of that during this debate, but the deal was ultimately far more advantageous to Canada than its critics foresaw.

Mr. Varah has a good quote here. He said, if we had turned down the Canada-US auto pact in 1965, “we’d all be driving three-cylinder Beavers and comparing ourselves with East Germany.” How true; but I do not think the members of the New Democratic Party would have any problem with that, I am sure they all drive three-cylinder Beavers now.

1650

Mr. Breaugh: Somebody send out for some Sominex.

Mr. Dietsch: Or more water.

Mr. McCague: They sold all the water.

Mr. Villeneuve: John Turner will sell our water for us.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Water is the next thing under attack under free trade. What about our fresh water? Ever thought about that?

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Breaugh: This is the best part of the speech so far.

Mr. Runciman: I am glad the member is enjoying it. The member for Oshawa has indicated that he is enjoying my comments. I very much appreciate that.

Mr. Breaugh: The long pause, in particular, is really good.

Mr. South: It is what you call a pregnant silence.

Mr. Runciman: It has always amazed me how thin-skinned these folks are as well. Once you start being a little bit critical of the official opposition, they have a great deal of difficulty in handling that. The member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) has been in here lately, the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale (Mr. Philip) and the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman). I have been in this House during this debate and on other occasions in the recent past when some criticism has been levelled against members of that party, and they react almost irrationally. They have a difficult time accepting constructive criticism. There is no question about it. I have never been reluctant to direct a little bit their way, and I am sure they have never been reluctant to direct it my way.

I want to put another quote on the record here. This is from one David Elton, professor of political science at the University of Alberta. This is about the NDP: “It is clear free trade could have a negative impact on some industries, as the NDP says, but when you look on both sides of the ledger, it is about four to one in terms of advantages against disadvantages of the deal.”

That is from a professor of political science at the University of Alberta.

I want to talk briefly about the energy sector, since that is one of the hats I wear.

The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, the member for Wilson Heights, is again making one of his off-the-cuff comments: “‘The US only wants our energy supply,’ Kwinter warns. ‘The Americans agreed to a free trade deal with Canada only because they wanted access to Canadian energy when they face a shortage.’” I think we all know where the minister is coming from.

In the same paper -- and I lauded this individual earlier; not simply because she takes this position, on a number of issues she takes positions I do not agree with: Carol Goar writes for the Toronto Star and a number of other publications. She is a syndicated columnist, and the Toronto Star picks up her column, I suppose, to have opposing viewpoints, if nothing else. It occasionally carries George Will’s column as well. Carol Goar’s conclusion is in the December 16 edition of the London Free Press: “Energy Sections of Trade Deal not Harmful to Canada as Claimed.” She goes on:

“Eastern consumers are understandably uneasy. After being told for a decade by Ottawa that energy self-sufficiency is Canada’s best insurance policy....after assuming for years the west’s oil and gas were part of their birthright, they are being asked to sell their inheritance.”

But: “In fairness to the government, the energy provisions are considerably less draconian than Canadians were originally led to believe. But they are no less disturbing. Laid out in the clinical language of lawyers and bureaucrats is a vision of Canada’s energy future that sets west against east....

“A North American energy market is more than Canadians thought they were bargaining for,” but, “It wouldn’t destroy our identity or jeopardize our way of life,” and it is not as harmful to Canada as is being claimed by people like the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

That is in the Toronto Star and is about as good as it gets in the Toronto Star. I again extend my compliments to Ms. Goar.

I want to put some comments on record in respect to the energy industry.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Continental energy policy; we no longer have the right to shape our own destiny.

Mr. Runciman: “Shape our own destiny.” There is a true interventionist. I thought better of the Minister of Agriculture and Food, another strong supporter of the national energy program brought in by the former Prime Minister of this country.

This is a quote by Murray Todd, chairman of the Independent Petroleum Association of Canada:

“The new agreement pre-empts the possibility of another national energy program. This agreement does more for western Canada than we have been able to do for ourselves in Ottawa. Western Canada should like this agreement.”

Bob Blair, the chairman of Nova, an Alberta Corporation:

“In our business we would prefer to fight than be protected. We’re ready to compete with anyone. The kinds of business in western Canada require a large market to build. Even if we had the entire Canadian market, it would not be enough to sustain our output. It appears to me to be a thoroughly positive agreement.”

Here is another one from James Tarrant, who is a minister-counsellor of the United States embassy:

“Neither country has given up its right to set its own energy policy. It’s important to make clear that the United States does not have any right to Canadian energy supplies per se and that the same is true for Canada.”

Here are a couple more in terms of the energy field. Murray Todd, chairman of the Independent Petroleum Association of Canada:

“Security of supply cannot be gained through legislation. Rather, security of supply resides in the vast geological potential of the sparsely explored western Canadian sedimentary basin from our tar sands and from the Arctic and east coast frontiers. Supportive government policies will encourage our industry to search for and develop new sources of supply. This is the best means to secure our future supplies of petroleum. Vigorous exploration will ensure not only our own security of supply, but also will enable us to maintain and improve our trade with the United States.”

Here is one from the petrochemical field from Firman Bentley, who is the vice-president of Polysar Ltd. in Sarnia:

“The free trade agreement is going to enhance an already growing area. We got 100 per cent of what we asked for. I don’t see any downside to it. It’s exactly what we were trying to achieve -- access to the US market for our world-scale petrochemical plant.”

This is what our party has been saying all along. We have the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology running around the province, again using the same kinds of scare tactics that were prominent during the election campaign and indicating that this agreement is going to hurt us in the energy sector in the near term and long term. That does not bear with the facts. In fact, it could have a very beneficial impact in terms of opening up new sources of energy for this province and for this country.

1700

Again, I think the government has taken an approach that is not in the best interests of this country as a whole and has tried to look at what are perhaps in the short term the best interests of this province. I even have some difficulty with that. I think they have been attempting to justify a position that is by and large unjustifiable.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: One more hour, Bob.

Mr. Runciman: I can read on for another hour if I have to, if the minister wants to tempt me.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Oh, I am not sure you can read on.

Mr. Runciman: The minister does not believe so?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Not according to the rules; better think about that.

Mr. Runciman: I want to put some comments on the record from one Richard Lipsey, who is recognized as one of Canada’s foremost academic economists. He is currently an adviser to the C. D. Howe Institute.

The opening paragraph should interest the minister: “Consumers of Canada unite. You have nothing to lose but your high prices.” Critics of the free trade agreement say Canadians have more to lose than Americans because Canada has the higher tariffs. Lipsey finds that to be total nonsense:

“Consumers gain by getting rid of tariffs. The higher their country’s tariffs the more they gain by getting rid of them. Senior citizens in particular and consumers in general should be pleased that they will pay no more in Oshawa or Kingston than they now pay in Detroit or Buffalo.”

Mr. Haggerty: You don’t believe that, come on now, Bob.

Mr. Runciman: One of the members is interjecting that I do not believe that. The member for Niagara South (Mr. Haggerty) is suggesting that he knows better than one of Canada’s foremost economists, an adviser to the C. D. Howe Institute. The member has studied this agreement so thoroughly that he can contradict one of Canada’s most respected economists.

I have a great deal of difficulty in accepting the fact that the member for Niagara South has taken a thorough look at this agreement and all the implications, what it means to the consumers in his riding. I seriously doubt it. What he is doing is what he has done so well for years. He is sticking up his hand when he is told to stick up his hand and standing up when he is told to stand up.

He is a good member for his riding. I will not be critical of the member. There is no question about it. But he is there to serve his master. His interjections are certainly not adding much to the debate. He has indicated that he has some difficulty with one of Canada’s foremost academic economists. If he wants to take Mr. Lipsey to task later on during this debate, we would love to hear his comments, his statistics and his position with respect to what Mr. Lipsey has put on the record.

When Mr. Lipsey talked about critics like the member for Niagara South, he said:

“Good Canadians will understand that rejecting the free trade deal is the price of remaining Canadian. The view that we cannot remain Canadian because we trade more freely with the United States shows how out of touch with reality the great free trade debate has become. This view shows no understanding either of Canada’s past or of the rest of the world’s experience. The proposed agreement is not some novel policy taking Canada into uncharted waters.”

He has an accompanying chart to show that Canada dismantled over 85 per cent of its tariff protection from 1935 to 1986:

“We did not fall off the end of the world when those tariffs were dismantled. Jobs were created, not lost; and our social programs were developed rather than dismantled. So why, in heaven’s name, when we remove the last 15 per cent of our tariff protection, should some new, totally different scenario unfold? When we proceed along the broken line surely the world will unfold as it did when we proceeded along the solid line.”

I think Mr. Lipsey’s comments are very significant. I am going to take the time to put them on the record:

“Free trade is not an untried initiative from the world’s point of view: 71 countries, including all advanced industrial countries except Canada and Japan, which already has a domestic market of 120 million people, are currently in some form of regional trade-liberalizing arrangement. These numbers reflect the simple assessment of both conservative and socialist governments that in today’s highly integrated world large markets matter. If these countries can come together to reap the benefits of larger markets without losing their distinctive characteristics, why is Canada unable to do so?”

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: Buy a newspaper. You can read a newspaper.

Mr. Runciman: The Minister of Northern Development (Mr. Fontaine) is interjecting in his usual helpful way. You know, there is a gentleman whose answer to any question he is asked we have extreme difficulty in ever understanding, and he talks about reading excerpts from a newspaper. I would like to see some of his colleagues, himself included, do away with reading their answers from their books whenever a question is posed to them in this House and start making some sense during question period on occasion, which is certainly rare indeed.

Canada is proposing to remove, over 10 years, tariffs that currently average about 10 per cent. That is one per cent per year. Last year the rise in the value of the yen was the equivalent for Japanese industries of removing a tariff of 40 per cent in about nine months. If Japanese industry can adjust to that kind of buffeting, surely Canada can adjust to taking off one per cent protection each year for 10 years.

The critics say: “We will become like Americans if we trade even more with them. We will catch their lack of dynamism and adopt their gun laws.” Adopt their gun laws, Madam Speaker: can you believe that?

The British industrial decline began in 1900, yet Britain was our major trading partner for nearly 60 years thereafter. We traded with the British without their lack of dynamism rubbing off on to us. If we buy our groceries from a fascist and sell some services to a Marxist, trading with these guys to our mutual advantage makes us neither Marxist nor fascist. Canadians have confidence in themselves, and you can rub shoulders with Americans without becoming American in outlook or in policies.

I have to share that. I grew up in a border town, and we do not have the same view of Americans as many across the floor do, and certainly our friends to the right. We have friends in Ogdensburg, New York, and Watertown, New York. My brother-in-law is an American from Ogdensburg, New York. We have grown up with these people and we know what kind of people they are. I do not think we have to have the same kind of fears we have heard expressed by opponents of this deal, about Americans and the kinds of big, bad ogres that people in this government and people in the opposition parties in Ottawa are expressing. They are indeed our best friends, and we should treat them as our best friends. We have negotiated an excellent deal with our best friends.

The critics are also telling us that social policies will be eroded. It has to be considered a bit strange that those Canadians who feel we cannot maintain our distinctiveness if we trade a bit more with the Americans also feel that we are so different from everyone else that the experience of 71 other countries is totally irrelevant.

Holland has a very expensive set of social policies, yet it has been in a free trade area with low-spending Belgium for 50 years. Sweden also has many high-cost social policies, yet it trades freely with conservative West Germany in the European free trade area. Rich countries have traded profitably with poor countries; and high-social-spending countries have traded profitably with tight-fisted countries over many centuries.

In any case, we have already removed 85 per cent of our tariff protection over the past 50 years, and we still have our distinctive social policies. According to the opponents’ arguments, we should have lost 85 per cent of our policies already. Why on earth should taking off the last 15 per cent lose us those things that we have preserved and expanded through the removal of 85 per cent of our tariffs?

The United States offer of preferential access to its market has made Canada the envy of world traders, yet in a fit of national insecurity, Canadians may reject the offer. I personally do not believe that is going to occur. I think the polls are starting to show a trend in the direction that people are taking a close look at this agreement, or starting to listen to the details and they are not being swayed by the emotional arguments. Once they do take a close look at this deal, I believe quite strongly that it is going to be supported by the majority of Canadians. That is going to be reflected in the next federal election as well.

1710

It is clearly indicated now that the Prime Minister and his federal colleagues are moving up in the polls. The people suffering in the latest Globe-CROP poll are members of the federal New Democratic Party, who have been most strident in their opposition to this agreement; and that is starting to have an impact on the electorate, the people of this country.

“Anyone who has lived in the United States knows that Canadians are not Americans. The reasons lie in our different histories, geographies and immigrant experiences. We Canadians should have enough confidence in ourselves to grasp the offered material advantages while understanding that we will remain Canadians even if we eat one more McDonald’s hamburger or watch one more episode of Dallas or trade a bit more with the United States. Canadians of this great country unite, you have nothing to lose but your fears.”

I think perhaps Mr. Lipsey has very succinctly caught this position in terms of the critics of the deal. He has covered all of the bases. I think we simply have to talk about investment projections in Canada if this deal goes through. The member for Brantford has talked over the past number of days in his interventions about the branch plant economy and losing branch plants; and I indicated with respect to my riding the number of branch plants that are so important to the local economy and the kinds of corporate citizens that those companies have been and where many of our communities would be without those branch plant operations.

I happen to be a subscriber to the Christian Science Monitor, an American publication. When we are talking about investment, I think we also have to take a look at investment going the other way: not just US investment in Canada but Canadian investment in the United States. It has been booming. In Canada it is $7.5 billion. If we talk about the last year, take a look at what is happening in terms of investments in the United States: Canadian outward investment accelerated in the mid-1970s, and since 1978 it has averaged about $3.5 billion a year. In 1981 and 1985, Canadian companies acquired more than $5 billion in foreign assets and most of that has gone to the United States, more than 65 per cent of it in 1984. The book value of Canada’s direct investment in the United States climbed from $5.5 billion in 1975 to $35 billion in 1985. The average annual increase over that decade was about 20 per cent. By now, close to 528,000 workers in the United States are employed by Canadian-owned companies, topped only by British-owned companies, which employ a little over 600,000.

I guess we have to wonder about the reaction to the Americans with respect to this kind of investment. For my view it has only been positive. The feedback I have received has only been positive about the kinds of investment that Canadians are making in the United States. I think that again we have to look at our neighbours as friends and not folks that we have to be terribly concerned about in respect of their intentions.

As I said earlier, with respect to the government’s position in this Legislature and the position it took in the campaign, a measure of it was opportunism. But I think it also reinforced again my view, and I cannot say it often enough, that this is very much an interventionist government and a government that believes in intervention.

We have had that reinforced. I think even the Minister of Agriculture and Food was talking about intervention and national energy programs and so on, and indicating his support for the much-maligned national energy program brought in by Mr. Trudeau. Again, as I indicated, the Star in its continuing efforts, and David Crane in an article “How Intervention Has Worked for Canada,” indicated again the sort of approach that party, echoed by the Toronto Star or vice versa, would like to take.

Hon. Mr. Elston: Have you said it before, Bob?

Mr. Runciman: Well, I am just getting through all of my clippings here.

Another one was in the Toronto Star just the other day in an editorial, “Logic Doesn’t Lead to Trade Deal.” The first point they make is that the government will not have the ability to intervene with the discretion that it has had in the past. Of course, that has been their key concern, intervention in the economy, and the fact that more decisions will be made by the business community.

Hon. Mr. Elston: More decisions made by the business community in the United States.

Mr. Runciman: The minister says, “More decisions made by the business community in the United States.” He was not here earlier when I talked at some length about industry executives at Dupont of Canada in my riding, indicating very clearly that they do make their decisions within Canada. I talked about Procter and Gamble in my riding closing down a plant in New Jersey and moving to Brockville because of the productivity levels in its Brockville facility. I think we do not have a valid concern in that respect.

Again, l want to put a few more things on the record. I am sure members will appreciate this. This is from the latest issue of Reader’s Digest.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Ronald Reagan reads that.

Mr. Runciman: He also eats jelly beans.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: He eats jelly beans. He doesn’t read jelly beans.

Mr. Runciman: The Premier has made a tremendous contribution to the debate here this afternoon. He has clarified the fact that the President eats jelly beans and does not read them.

Hon. Mr. Elston: You read tea leaves.

Mr. Runciman: Reads tea leaves, yes.

In fact, the essence of this article is that Canada, some middle power in international politics -- and I may not go through all of this, I will spare some of the members; but then again I may, it will depend.

Hon. Mr. Elston: It is very important stuff.

Mr. Runciman: Yes, it is.

“In international politics, it takes time for perceptions to catch up with reality. While Canadians have been slow to recognize this Canada has come to be seen as a major power, with the international interests and capabilities such a term implies. Most Canadians are comfortable thinking of themselves as a middle power, but I am not sure that this is the best way for us to see ourselves. To paraphrase Robert Burns, to see ourselves as others see us frees us from many a blunder and foolish notion.

“What do others see of Canada? Well, they see a country with the seventh-largest economy in the free world. They see the second-largest country on the global map. They see that since 1970 our gross domestic product has more than quintupled.

“They see a lot more. Since the beginning of 1983, our growth rate has been among the highest of the group of seven major industrial countries. And all of this has been happening despite a prolonged retreat in natural resource prices.

“By 1985, manufactured products amounted to over two thirds of Canadian exports. In the Fortune 500 ranking of the largest non-US industrial companies, Canada has nearly as many entries as France and three times as many as Italy. Nor” -- this is a crucial point -- “we only export. We also import, and in a big way. The latest figures show that we now take almost 25 per cent of all US export.

“The investment picture as well has changed dramatically. In 1960 the net flow of direct investment to and from Canada was $620 million. Foreigners invested $670 million and Canadians invested $50 million abroad. By 1975, foreign direct investment in Canada was $725 million; Canadian direct investment abroad was $915 million.” In other words, the net flow became an outflow and stayed that way.

1720

“In the past three years, the flow of Canadian direct investment to the United States exceeded the flow of US direct investment to Canada. Indeed, by 1985, the total of Canadian direct investment in the United States equalled almost three fifths of the total US direct investment in Canada.”

That size of investment increases the Canadian presence abroad. It extends Canadian interests in the world and brings with it a measure of increased Canadian influence. So does our aid program. It delivers assistance worth approximately $2.5 billion per year. In absolute terms that is eighth in the industrial world.

The point is that in the international scheme of things our strength ranks us ahead of more than 150 countries. Some middle power.

I will go on to this point again in a few moments, but I want to reiterate some points I made earlier, as the Premier is present and I would like to make these points again in his presence. I have expressed a concern on many occasions about the key players in the current government and their ideology, their philosophy and where they are coming from.

I said some people have been less than generous to this government about its current position on free trade, indicating that it was an opportunist during the election, ran with this issue and put itself in a position where it now has to oppose it. l have suggested that the key players in this government are truly opposed to this agreement and are not simply backed into a corner from their stance in the election because of their belief in their ability to intervene in the economy and because of the views that were put forward by the Attorney General during his speech to the Canadian Bar Association a couple of weeks ago when he talked about this agreement restricting government’s ability to intervene in the private sector.

I think this is an interventionist government by nature. I think it is going to continue to clearly show that in the years ahead.

I talked about the Premier’s business background and I was not attempting to be defamatory. I was simply putting something on the record about how I feel about his background and where he is coming from in respect to this issue. l do not think he has an extensive business background. He became president of the firm that was owned by his father and indeed had a couple of years as the president of that firm. But if you take a look at his father’s beliefs, being a signator of the Regina Manifesto, I think there is an inclination there along the way, in terms of ideological beliefs, that are being reflected in the current government.

Mr. South: The sins of the father visited unto the second and third generations.

Mr. Runciman: That is right. The foghorn has sounded from eastern Ontario.

Mr. Villeneuve: Still in the fog.

Mr. Runciman: Yes. Constantly in the fog.

I think I am being fair in this respect. I think this is essentially where this government is coming from. I have emphasized on a number of occasions that this is indeed an antibusiness government. We have seen it reflected in legislation that could be blamed, if you will, on their alliance with the New Democratic Party, but I think in the years to come we are going to see more positions taken by this government which reflect that outlook on the way government should operate in this country. I simply wanted to say that in the presence of the Premier.

Getting back to the question of Canada being unable to compete effectively in world markets, I want to put again on the record that today Canada is recognized almost everywhere as a major power.

We would not now be a member of the Group of Seven if the leaders of the western world’s major economies did not recognize the necessity of including the Canadian Prime Minister in their deliberations. We would not be a member of the Group of Seven finance ministers if they believed they could do as well without the presence of their Canadian colleague during their discussions.

We would not have played host at Quebec City in 1987 to the new institution of the francophone summit, of which Canada was the principal architect, or helped steer the Commonwealth through a difficult agenda of international problems if others did not appreciate this country’s capacity for constructive and creative leadership.

Our membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and our military presence in Europe would not be so highly valued if governments and people throughout the North Atlantic region did not feel the need to have us present in the field and at the negotiating table.

At the same time as we become steadily stronger among nations -- relative, that is, to others -- the scope of any nation to act independently is becoming steadily narrower. Canada, Brazil, Singapore, West Germany, Japan and the United States have all become increasingly integrated into a larger world system for goods, services, finance, technology, information transfers, sports, communications and more. No country, not even the United States, can escape the limits on sovereignty that modern realities impose.

For Canada, these changes are paradoxical. In a world community where the freedom of individual states to act is constricting the influence of Canada, it is steadily expanding vis-à-vis others.

What are the implications of this situation for our relations with the United States? It follows that when we see ourselves in relation to our southern neighbour, we should not think of ourselves as the modest middle power next to the giant, as a beleaguered society constantly threatened by absorption or as a nation constantly in need of protective, defensive policies.

The world does not see us this way. The Americans do not see us this way. Indeed, Canadians increasingly do not see themselves this way. Canada is emerging as a more confident nation that sees more opportunities in the world than threats, more avenues than fences, more challenges in extending its presence in the land of others than closing its own land to the presence of others.

If Canadians are frustrated by the constraints of interdependence, Americans are infuriated by them, and apprehensive too. Nowhere is this apprehension clearer than in trade, which dominates the United States political agenda. That is why the free trade negotiations were so critical. At their most basic level, their objective was to bring the rule of law to bilateral trade, to create a system that takes the politics of special interests out of the conduct of trade.

Canadians have a great deal at stake. If the deal falls through, there will be no return to the status quo for Canada. Those who would prefer that option must realize that the status quo is gone.

Americans also have a lot at stake. If they cannot strike a deal with Canada, how can they negotiate freer trade with the rest of the world? Moreover, in the absence of an agreement between the United States and Canada, it will be difficult to prevent bilateral trade disputes from increasing. It will also be difficult to prevent the disputes from affecting the larger relationship, although political leaders will try very hard to confine the protectionist virus. That, in addition to its inherent benefits, is why both sides need a trade agreement.

While an agreement would be welcome in Washington if the terms were right, there is no sign anywhere that the Americans see a trade agreement as a means to swallow up Canada at last. That is a Canadian myth. The United States is a pluralistic, competitive, turbulent society, almost totally absorbed in the extraordinarily difficult task of governing itself. The Americans have little inclination to look northward at all, let alone with Manifest Destiny on their minds. More than anything else, what most Americans would like is to be left alone. Canadians would be foolhardy to ignore the United States’s power, but we would be foolish to allow myths about our vulnerability to obscure our vision or to discount our prospects.

The fact is that the world has changed; the Americans have changed and we have changed. We can make an error of historic proportions as we judge one of the most consequential negotiations in our nationhood, if we fail to see ourselves as others see us.

1730

I simply want to wind up my comments and indicate that the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen) is going to put a few comments on the record as well, and there may well be someone in the governing party who would wish to make some comments.

But I think I have indicated quite clearly from my perspective, from talking to people in my riding, from talking to people in the business community, in industry and in agriculture that there is indeed widespread support for this agreement. We are talking about people who have taken the time, spent the money and done whatever is necessary to analyse this agreement thoroughly, in the final text and its impact on their particular business operations. They have come to the conclusion that this is indeed in their best interests and in the best interests of this province and of this country.

I must say that, because of our position in this debate over the past couple of weeks, in the way that we have had to become involved, speaking at length and having to do some research, looking at the issues and looking at positions both pro and con, taking a look at how various elements of the agreement may impact on our own ridings, I think we have had the opportunity perhaps to become much more familiar with it than we would have otherwise, except for perhaps those members who are serving on the committee that is taking a close look at the agreement.

I regret that perhaps members of the governing party have not had the same opportunity, simply because they have been told the position they are going to take. That is indeed regrettable. I think it is the kind of issue where it would have been an excellent opportunity for the leadership of the party to open it up for very meaningful debate within its caucus and thorough study by one of its infamous caucus committees, perhaps in terms of what this meant to Ontario and what it meant to Canada, and then had a thorough, full discussion at caucus, so that it could have taken a position; that perhaps may well indeed have reflected its current one, but I suspect, in fairness, it would have been significantly different.

Knowing the makeup and the backgrounds of many members of its caucus and the fact that many of them are Liberals in the truest sense, the leadership does not reflect in any great way, in my view, the feelings and views of the bulk of the membership of the current government caucus.

I think that is going to take its toll over the years. I have had the opportunity, and a few of us on this side have had the opportunity -- and it is unique from an opposition perspective -- of having sat as a government back-bencher, having sat as a member of the executive council and now, sitting as a member of the opposition and sitting back and looking at some of the things that the government back-benchers are going through.

I was elected in 1981 with a caucus of 71 or 72. We had some difficulties then and we know that the Premier and the government House leader are attempting to placate the members and to keep them all happy; but I wonder, in terms of this issue, in terms of many other meaningful issues that we have faced and are going to face in the coming months, just how much input the members really have into those decisions. I suspect it is very little.

I guess it is a personal decision as to whether anyone wants to stand up and take a position which is at variance from that of the leader of his party. I cannot personally recommend it. When we talked earlier about Suncor, I was the lone member of our caucus to disagree with the leadership of my party during that situation and I cannot indicate that it was of any great benefit to me. Let me put it this way, I was the only one to disagree publicly with that decision. So, based on my own experience, I cannot recommend that course of action to the members; but I think that, if indeed they go on for the next few years in the current situation, there is going to be a significant and growing degree of frustration within the ranks of the governing party. Of course, we will do nothing to discourage that.

Again, this has not only been a debate about the free trade agreement. It has also been a debate about process and about the way this whole matter has been handled by the government. Perhaps the government members are tired of hearing this familiar refrain, but it happens to be the fact. It happens to be a fact that there was an agreement between the House leaders. We have the two opposition House leaders in the House, and if I am saying anything incorrect, they can stand up and correct the record. Our understanding is that an agreement was reached in terms of a resolution being brought to this House: a resolution that simply referred this question to a committee of the Legislature, not a substantive motion.

Earlier in the day, I tried to take some of the burden off the government House leader’s shoulders. I think he has received a great deal of criticism for the way he has conducted himself in the past month or so, but I have indicated that he has been in a learning mode. I think he has learned a significant amount from the way this whole matter has evolved over the past number of days. In terms, hopefully, of the government, we will see about that in the days and months to come.

We are small in number and I think we have a very important role to play in the Ontario Legislature and the democratic process in this province. It is very important to the people of this province that we did have some opposition members elected. I have some sympathy for the folks in New Brunswick, although certainly in his initial moves the Premier of New Brunswick has made the right decision in respect to this agreement and is not taking a view that is in the negative interests of --

Mr. Smith: What about six frigates?

Mr. Runciman: We have to put this on the record. We earlier had the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) suggest that the Liberal Premier of New Brunswick made that decision based on the federal government’s decision to have frigate construction in his province. The Minister of the Environment has that on the record. Now we have the member for Lambton (Mr. Smith) indicating his support for that view. I think that perhaps we should make every effort to make the Premier of New Brunswick aware of the views of his Liberal friends in the Ontario Legislature: some friends.

I am not going to question the motives of the Premier of New Brunswick. I think he looked at what was best for the country and his province and made the decision based on that.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member is just questioning everyone else’s motives.

Mr. Runciman: I am not impugning the Premier of Ontario’s motives. I have indicated earlier where I think he is coming from. I think Rosemary Speirs indicated in her column that he is the leader of the left-liberal wing in this country that strongly supports intervention in the economy. I am not impugning his motives at all. I have suggested that there is a great deal of misunderstanding out there about just what his motives are. Some of his critics have indicated that he simply was an opportunist during the election and that he has himself in a position where he cannot back away from it.

I think the New Democratic Party, as a matter of fact, has taken the position that he is not being strong enough. Clearly, he is doing what he believes in; not necessarily what his caucus or his party believes in, but what he and a handful of key players in that caucus and in that executive council and a handful of key unelected folks -- we will put their names on the record again: Mr. Ashworth, Mr. Ezrin, probably Mr. Coutts, Senator Davey and a number of others we are unaware of. Those are the people --

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Hughie Segal, Eddie Greenspan.

Mr. Runciman: We have had a real revelation. The Premier has indicated that he now consults Hugh Segal for advice. He is part of his Tuesday morning coffee club, no doubt. Times change, but they do not really change, do they?

An hon. member: We agree with that statement.

Mr. Runciman: I know. The official opposition has no problem with that.

Again, we are talking about process. I think we have to have an appreciation of the special role that the opposition has to play in this House because we are small in number, I think the government has to be especially sensitive to the role of opposition in a large majority government.

1740

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Why do you think you’re here?

Mr. Runciman: In response to that, the Minister of Natural Resources said, “Why do you think you’re here?” That is kind of an arrogant remark; it really is. What he is suggesting is, “We could have invoked closure after two or three days.” That is really what he is suggesting: “We could have really flexed our muscles. We could have really come down on you hard.” Maybe they could have. There is no question that they have the ability to do that at any time. But by the same token, they have not treated this opposition with the sensitivity that they should have in their --

Hon. Mr. Wrye: We are still hoping to hear a good speech. Mike, have you spoken yet? You can do better than this.

Mr. Harris: February.

Interjections.

Mr. Runciman: I am saying they have not. Government members are suggesting that the mere fact this debate has continued is an indication of their sensitivity to the opposition. With all due respect, that is a crock. Is that parliamentary?

Mr. Breaugh: Crock: that is parliamentary and we haven’t heard that phrase for some time.

Mr. Runciman: With respect, that is a crock. Let us face it, we are here because the opposition parties stuck to their guns. They were offended, very deeply offended by the way the government, through the House leader, dealt with this whole issue. Again, I have said we had an agreement among the House leaders. A nonconsequential resolution in effect referring the whole question to the standing committee was to be brought to this House. We will probably never know for sure, but I suspect the House leader had this dropped upon him in the brainstorm of Jim Coutts, Hershell Ezrin or whomever -- we will never know -- who said to the Premier, “Let’s really kick tail here and tell Ronnie Reagan and Brian Mulroney” --

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Put it on the record; it was Hugh Segal who did this.

Mr. Runciman: Hugh Segal? I do not believe that for a moment.

Mr. Harris: Coutts is in favour of free trade now.

Mr. Runciman: Really? I wish I had known that earlier. Obviously, Coutts is no longer in the inner circle if he is supporting free trade.

I keep getting distracted from what I am attempting to say here.

Hon. Mr. Elston: You have very little to be distracted from.

Mr. Runciman: I cannot help but make note of the presence of the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet (Mr. Elston). I have spoken on a number of occasions since this House has reconvened and he always attends. We have to be amazed. I served as a member of Management Board and we have a former Chairman of Management Board sitting here as well. We know the kind of onerous load the chairman of the board had during our days in government. He did not have time to sit in this House and heckle members of the opposition parties. We have to wonder, did the minister get a promotion? He was the Minister of Health. Did he get a demotion? Is he in that position by his own request? Who is running the place? Is the Secretary of the Management Board running the show?

We have not asked the chairman any questions but I suspect based on his presence here every day -- he does not bring anything with him, probably a newspaper on occasion; the Toronto Star if anything. He sits over there memorizing the Toronto Star.

Mr. Speaker: Does this work into the amended resolution?

Mr. Runciman: You had to ask that question, didn’t you, Mr. Speaker? Back to the amended resolution.

I said this debate is not only about free trade but is also about process. I have been slowly but surely trying to get to the point. I was saying --

Hon. Mr. Elston: Very slowly.

Mr. South: You are proving New Brunswick is a good idea.

Mr. Runciman: Remember, I was talking about New Brunswick and how important having an effective opposition is to the parliamentary system. I think a special burden is placed upon the government in this current situation, with its 90 some members. They have to be extremely sensitive to the current situation.

An hon. member: Why?

Mr. Runciman: “Why?” one asks. If you care about democracy, you care about having an opposition. It is extremely unfortunate what has happened in New Brunswick. It could have happened here very easily when you look at the popular vote. The fact that we have a three-party system in this province is what unquestionably saved our bacon for the few of us who survived.

In any event, in the future, when we talk about sensitivity, I think there has to be increased sensitivity to what this kind of resolution means to us, means to the New Democratic Party and means to the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario. We had an agreement reached among the House leaders. We had the government House leader come in with a substantive motion which was directly in conflict with an agreement reached among the leaders; he dropped this on us just before the Christmas break. So there have been some harsh feelings.

I am talking about some sensitivity on the part of the government with respect to an opposition, although small in number. I am saying that this really was a bastardization of the process, if you will, a totally inappropriate act on the part of the government. When we look at what is going to happen in the future, I think, I hope, there are some messages here, some very clear messages.

The Minister of Natural Resources says: “We treated you fairly. We could have invoked closure.” I have said that they can do this at any time, but that is not going to wash with the public of this province. They have to be seen as treating us fairly. That is why this debate has continued. There is no other reason. It is not because those folks really want to be here or want to be considerate of the opposition.

It is clear from the feedback we are getting here today that there is no real appreciation of the situation. There is no real sensitivity to the situation in this province with a massive majority government and a small opposition, as to how it has to treat this opposition. Those folks have to treat us with kid gloves. That is the bottom line. They have to treat us with kid gloves.

Mr. Elston: Careful, careful. You’ll get our goat.

Mr. Wrye: Just like you treated us in 1981. Remember?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Runciman: Let us face it, I cannot remember. I remember I was a government back-bencher in 1981. I was not a member of the executive council who hopefully can have some influence on the way the government is operating, on the way it is dealing with the opposition parties.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: Look what the rats upstairs are doing.

Mr. Runciman: But I am not confident about that based on the catcalls coming across the floor. I certainly would never count on the support of the Minister of Northern Development.

An hon. member: The people of the north cannot either.

Mr. Runciman: No, the people of the north cannot either, that is for sure. Let us get that on the record.

I talked about sensitivity. In the future, we are hopeful that we are going to see increased sensitivity. There are a number of options open to us as members of the opposition, procedural options. We all want to see this House play a meaningful role.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: This is a first, a sensitivity lesson from Bob Runciman.

Mr. Runciman: That is right; I am a very sensitive person.

Mr. McCague: And sensible too.

Mr. Runciman: And sensible too; that is right. I thank my colleague for adding that. This is being offered in a very constructive fashion. The Premier could aggravate me to the point where I may get into something else, which I would rather not get into today in terms of sensitivity.

I like the Premier. I knew him when he was in opposition. I knew him when he was a member of committee before he was leader of the party. At the same time, I have been deeply offended by his approach in terms of the question I asked some weeks ago in terms of Chilean wines. I made this point when I was talking about this Premier making a decision and his level of maturity in terms of dealing with some of these issues. I talked about Chilean wines and the way he reacted to that, and his reaction in the media this morning in respect to this debate going on. It was reported in the media this morning that he did not care if it went on for months; that is OK by him. Is that the reaction you expect from the Premier of a province? When I asked him a serious question about human rights, he made a very derogatory response questioning my commitment to human rights. Those are the kinds of -- we talk about sensitivity.

1750

Mr. D. R. Cooke: Talk about trade.

Mr. Miclash: Exactly, talk about trade.

Mr. Runciman: He makes the point. I am putting my feelings on the record. I think there has to be an increased degree of sensitivity and it has to stem from the top. He has to lead the way. Responses such as I received the other day certainly do not set an excellent example for his colleagues. The way this whole matter of the free trade resolution has been dealt with by the government offended us and makes it extremely difficult to function in a very productive way in this House.

I think we are here to perform a role, an important role in this Legislature, a role that has to be understood and respected. They may not always like it and they may not always appreciate it, but it has to be respected.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: Half an hour is enough.

Mr. Runciman: I know they would like to have a rubber stamp. They would like to have nobody sitting over here and just come in and pass everything. Well, that is not in the best interests of the people of this province. I am saying the sensitivity has to stem from the top.

We can talk about the House leader and the resolution that was brought in here and his attitude. We get into a level of -- there was speculation in respect to arrogance in one of the Toronto papers the other day, talking about arrogance already within this majority government. The members who were mentioned were the Premier, the Attorney General and, I think, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara). I would have added a couple of more folks to that list. I would have added the Minister of the Environment and in many respects the government House leader. But we are not surprised by the government House leader’s approach. Even in opposition he was never a humble soul, we can recognize that.

If you put those five gentlemen in a small room with one mirror, that would be the definition of chaos, there is no question in my mind. We talk about egos and we talk about world-class. That is world-class over there; world-class egos along that front bench.

Mr. Breaugh: Well, they’ve been in power for 44 years, that’s why.

Mr. Runciman: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Put you in a room alone; you’d be chaos.

Mr. Runciman: The minister does not call this chaos, does he?

Hon. Mr. Elston: Talk your way out of that one.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Go for air, Bob.

Mr. Harris: You won’t even feed the deer.

Mr. Runciman: In any event, I do not mind a little criticism.

Mr. Breaugh: Yes, from a man who won’t even feed starving deer.

Mr. Runciman: That is right.

Mr. Villeneuve: But he knows how many fish he has too.

Mr. Runciman: He will not feed starving deer but spends all his extra time counting fish.

Interjections.

Mr. Smith: You’re a class act, Bob.

Mr. Runciman: Thank you very much. Can we get that on the record? The member for Lambton said that the member for Leeds-Grenville is a class act and he said it in a very sincere fashion; there is no question about that.

Mr. Breaugh: Now it’s on the record.

Mr. Runciman: That is right; it is on the record. It is about as sincere as a Liberal can get.

Mr. Eves: After 14 martinis.

Mr. Runciman: Yes. I have only a few minutes to go.

Mr. Breaugh: Get back on the Bob White stuff.

Mr. Runciman: No, I do not want to get back on to Bob White. I think if someone can talk about Bob White and the hypocrisy of Bob White, no one can do it any better than the member for Oshawa. I sit over here and listen to the member for Oshawa talking about Bob White. I have heckled during some of the question periods and I have made some comments about Bob White. The member for Oshawa inevitably will say, “Bob’s out walking on water at the moment.”

Mr. Breaugh: No, “Bob’s walking on Lake Ontario.”

Mr. Runciman: Bob’s walking on Lake Ontario.

Mr. Breaugh: He jogs there every afternoon. It’s a matter of faith, but --

Mr. Runciman: So we know where the member for Oshawa is coming from in respect to Bob White.

Much of the last few moments has been in sort of a jocular fashion, but in all sincerity, I want to talk again about the relationship between the government and the opposition parties. We have just started this process. We have close to four years -- three and a half years -- ahead of us.

Interjections.

Mr. Runciman: Well, I predicted earlier that I am sitting beside the future Minister of Agriculture and Food about four years from now, who is going to turn this province around in terms of agriculture. He is going to do the job that needs to be done now and is not being done.

Mr. Breaugh: The man who has to follow in Jack Riddell’s footsteps.

Mr. Runciman: Well, there is some argument about whether he will follow in Jack’s footsteps or the footsteps of the former member for Lincoln, but time will tell.

Again, I want to put on the record that I hope this whole exercise has not been one of futility. Obviously, we have had an opportunity to get on the record with our views and our support of the free trade agreement as we see it.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: And you’ve wasted it.

Mr. Runciman: I do not think we have wasted it. I think most of us have taken advantage of the opportunity to express our personal views, although they certainly are in compliance with the views of our party. I think we feel very comfortable with that indeed. I suspect that is not the case across there. You cannot go through their caucus and find the kind of comfort level with their position that we have with our position. I seriously doubt it.

An hon. member: The member from Niagara is very uncomfortable.

Mr. Runciman: The member from Niagara? Yes, I have no doubt about it. In fact, I think one who has the most serious reservations about this whole exercise is the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, the member for Wilson Heights, who has some business credentials that stand up to scrutiny. In talking to his friends in Metropolitan Toronto in the business community -- and he has some -- there is no question about it.

Mr. Breaugh: There is his brother, and who else?

An hon. member: Both of them.

Mr. Runciman: Yes, both of them. I am sure if we were to have the minister fess up, we would know he does not find this offensive at all. If he had his druthers, he would be standing up there saying: “This is not a bad deal for Ontario. This is a darn good deal for Canada.” We are not going to hear that, regrettably.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the member allowed to say what I would say?

Mr. Eves: You agree, don’t you?

Mr. Breaugh: Somebody has to.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: He cannot say that.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member has a few minutes left, and he wants to say a few things further, I believe.

Mr. Runciman: My only reference to that is that I am not restricted by cabinet solidarity, and we appreciate where the minister is coming from.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: You never will be.

Mr. Runciman: I want to have it put on the record that when I mentioned that I am not restricted by cabinet solidarity, the Premier indicated that I never would be.

Again, we are going to make a point of putting these interjections on the record because, let us face it, Hansard does not pick these up. We are going to make sure that eventually the people of this province are going to get a message of what this Premier is all about and what this government is all about and where they are coming from.

I am saying, clean up your act in your dealings with the opposition, or we are going to have a very difficult three and a half or four years.

I think all of us here are trying to be constructive. We are trying to do the job we were elected to do. We are not trying to be obstructionist. We are not trying to delay the process. If we are treated fairly, we are going to treat the government fairly. That is certainly the feeling within our caucus, and I have to believe it is the feeling within the New Democratic Party caucus as well. We want a fair shake and we want to be treated in a decent, responsible fashion in the months and years ahead, or we are going to have a very difficult time.

I appreciate having had the opportunity to participate in this very important debate. I think the agreement not only impacts significantly on my riding in a very positive way -- and that is what I have tried to convey here this afternoon -- sbut also has a very positive impact on our province, and that is the message that is not getting out. I think the province is being hurt by the current government’s stance, and it is certainly creating and further widening regional divisions in this country.

Mr. Speaker: You may wish to take note of the time.

Mr. Runciman: Mr. Speaker, I will take note of the time.

On motion by Mr. Runciman, the debate was adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Conway: I would like to indicate the business of the House for tomorrow.

On Thursday, December 31, there will be no private members’ hour. Routine proceedings will commence at 10 a.m. After routine proceedings, we will debate the interim supply motion standing on the Orders and Notices in the name of the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon).

The House adjourned at 6:01 p.m.

December 30, 1987

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

EMERGENCY TELEPHONE NUMBER

STUDENT FUND-RAISING

TORONTO CITY COUNCIL

DISTRICT OF PARRY SOUND

HANDS ACROSS THE CITY

WASTE DISPOSAL

VISITOR

ORAL QUESTIONS

FIRESTONE CANADA INC.

BUSINESS PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT

TORONTO AREA TRANSPORTATION

FIRESTONE CANADA INC.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

RETAIL STORE HOURS

TRANSIT SERVICES

NURSES’ LABOUR DISPUTE

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

FRUIT AND VEGETABLE INDUSTRY

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

FEEDING OF DEER

MOTION

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES (CONTINUED)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE