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

December 30, 1987

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L030 - Wed 30 Dec 1987 / Mer 30 déc 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

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

Prayers.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.”

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.

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.

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: