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

October 3, 1991

35th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1001.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

UNSOLICITED FACSIMILE TRANSMISSIONS ACT, 1991

Mr Cousens moved second reading of Bill 134,

An Act respecting Unsolicited Facsimile Transmissions.

LOI DE 1991 SUR LES TRANSMISSIONS PAR TELECOPIE NON SOLLICITEES

M. Cousens propose la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 134, Loi portant sur les transmissions par telecopie non sollicitees.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): The honourable member for Markham.

Mr Cousens: I would like to speak to this. It has had first reading in the House, and a chance now exists for us to debate a bill that, on a scale of 1 to 10, with all the things that are facing the Legislature -- well, I would none the less like to see this be given consideration this morning.

The Acting Speaker: The member has 10 minutes and a two-minute --

Mr Cousens: Gosh, there are so many rules around here it is going to be hard to live within them. Here I am trying to live within the rules of the Legislature, yet I want to have new rules and regulations for the world of finance and the world of business. I look forward to the day when we can deal with many other issues and when people look at this Legislature and say, "What are they dealing with that for?"

It just happens to be one of those issues that needs to be cleaned up, and in the hour we have this morning to talk about unsolicited faxes, we private members have a chance to do something. No one is going to twist our arms, other than our own consciences and maybe the outstanding arguments I present to all of us that we allow this bill to pass so Ontario can join those other jurisdictions that have said, "Let's do something about junk fax mail." That is where I am coming from on this one.

I have a little background information to give. The fact of the matter is, a few years ago we never even heard of a fax machine. I do not know whether we would put our pages to the test: "Have you ever received a fax? Have you ever sent a fax?" Maybe they have. Maybe they are sending their essays to school by fax and the teachers are now doing it the new, technological way.

For a number of years in Europe they have had facsimile machines where people have been able to transmit documents of all kinds to one another, escaping the entanglement of the post office or couriers, doing it far more quickly by virtue of using the communication lines of Bell, CN-CP or whatever to obtain that document more quickly.

Fax machines now are almost universal. In the world of business, if you do not have one, there is a small store not far away where you can send or receive a facsimile. We are seeing now in offices all over this country and this province that people have fax machines. People now can have one for their homes where, for special situations, they too can have their own machine.

Our MPP offices, just in the last little while, have been provided with fax machines, and on most of our business cards, as MPPs now, we will have a number for facsimile. The fact of the matter is, you can get them for cars, so there are portable faxes.

I realize that technology allows anything we have today to be extended further and further out. It is good that automation is expanding, and it seems to be helping business. Business then is able to do a great deal by using these machines. It becomes a legal document, so many real estate transactions now can be handled by a fax. Bankers, lawyers, many people are using these machines to expedite business. Let's face it: Things are getting faster and faster. We just have to have those tools available. We have to understand that it is a requirement just to run business today.

The fact that we have it, the fact that we are using it is in itself something that says, "Well, we just have to move with the times."

As technology expands, the old situations we had before continue to exist. When members receive their mail every day, how often do they also receive what they do not want to receive, their bills, their tax bills? Some people think of junk mail as being the letter from their MPP, but I am not including that when I talk about junk mail, especially when it comes from me to my constituents. But people really want to get rid of the junk. They say, "Hey, it's just adding to the accumulation of garbage; it's something I don't want."

Yet I do not know how we deal with that. First of all, it is a federal matter and the post office does not come under our jurisdiction. But one thing that does come under our jurisdiction is the kind of thing that happens with junk faxes.

An organization known as the Canadian Federation of Independent Business did a survey not too long ago. The CFIB asked whether there should be regulations protecting the public from advertising by businesses via fax machines; in other words, regulations that would prohibit people from just using the fax for solicitations of a commercial nature.

The results of this survey were that 81% of the respondents believed there should be regulations restricting the advertising by businesses using fax machines; 10% said no, there should not be regulations of any kind; 5% were undecided, and another 4% did not have any interest in the issue. The fact of the matter is, 81% of the respondents to this survey believed there should be regulations protecting the public from advertising by businesses using fax machines.

We have seen a number of jurisdictions take this seriously, and two states in the United States that I am aware of, Connecticut and Maryland, have both passed laws that will restrict the use of fax machines for the transmission of commercial solicitations.

I believe that when you have your own little machine in your own office these days you have made an investment, first of all, in the machine to have it there ready for your commercial activity. If the machine is tied up in receiving an extended advertisement or material that you did not want and that is not part of your normal business life, then you cannot use that machine. You cannot just turn it off. Once someone ties up your machine in sending out a large, detailed brief of some kind that you do not want, what can you do about it? You shut off the machine and then you shut off the communication once it is over.

Mr Curling: You take the phone off the hook.

Mr Cousens: You take the phone off the hook, as my good friend describes, and that is not why you have your business there.

The other thing is that these machines require an expensive coated paper; that paper is expensive for a business to have. When you tie up a fax machine, you are not only using their line, you are using their paper as well.

What we are trying to suggest is not a big move for the Ontario Legislature, when we can deal with the Constitution, the economy, the issues that deal with the environment and every portfolio. I am almost embarrassed to say this is the issue of the day. But it will give a message to business that says we, as the Ontario Legislature, want to see business streamlined.

If we can help in some way and remove the impediments that keep people from having the success they want and deserve, that they are really trying for, then through this kind of bill we are at least putting a message out there that indicates that the Ontario Legislature is not close-minded to the needs of business. In that spirit I have brought forward this bill.

It is too bad we did not debate it yesterday. Yesterday was Zero Garbage Day. A number of people will come into their offices in the morning, or even during the day, and receive 20 or 30 faxes that are unsolicited. It is just the kind of garbage they do not need.

If the House is able to consider this a worthy bill, in this one hour's time we will have been able at least to begin on this road of recovery that helps business and say we in the Legislature are working with them. That is part of the message I want to convey through this bill, that we are not isolated from the real world, where things are not all that easy, but from this perspective we are at least making the time and the concern known that we are prepared to do something about it.

Bill 134 is a very simple bill, and what it means is that if someone does use the fax machine for unsolicited commercial solicitation, he could suffer a fine of $1,000. This will not cut into the kind of solicitation that people make of us as politicians, it will not cut into some of the normal ways in which business is communicated, but it will start getting rid of what we call junk fax.

The Acting Speaker: I thank the honourable member for his opening remarks. He will have two minutes to summarize. Every recognized party in the Legislature now has 15 minutes to debate Bill 134, as presented by the honourable member for Markham.

Mr Kormos: There was so much enthusiasm about this legislation that I have to share the 15 minutes with at least two other speakers, and I am relying on the member for Kitchener-Wilmot -- why is it that we cannot call people by their real names? Their friends, their families, their spouses call them by their real names. In any event, I am sure Mr Cooper -- notwithstanding that Hansard may well correct that -- will let me know when I have used up what he deems to be my portion of the time. Of course, depending upon what I say, it may well motivate him to let me speak longer or shorter.

I am especially pleased to be able to speak to the bill of the member for Markham this morning, because I am going to be in Markham this evening, and I know the member for Markham is going to make every effort to be there too. The Zemplin Slovak Ensemble is celebrating its 30th anniversary tonight, Thursday, at the Markham Theatre, 171 Town Centre Boulevard in Markham. That is 8 pm. The Gymnik Orchestra from Slovakia is visiting Ontario and touring and performing, along with the Toronto Slovak Dancers and the Vychodna Slovak Dancers.

I know Mr Cousens has been entertained by the Toronto Slovak Dancers and the Vychodna Slovak Dancers because he and I have been at some of the same concerts where these people have performed.

Mr Cousens: Is that a fax?

Mr Kormos: It is a fact, not a fax. That is an event that I am not going to miss in Markham tonight and, I suspect, any number of people who are watching this morning would not miss either.

I was a little bit concerned about the member for Markham's suggestion that pages may not be familiar with faxes. To the contrary, Robert Schmidt, the page from Brant-Haldimand, is very familiar with fax machinery and has used fax technology to communicate not just here in the province but as far away as Europe.

So just by way of correction, and I know the member for Markham takes this in the tone it is intended, I tell him Robert Schmidt from Brant-Haldimand objects mildly and modestly to his suggestion that pages are not familiar with faxes. On the contrary, I suspect these young people are far more familiar with that type of technology than many of the more mature, perhaps older persons here in the Legislature.

I was heartened by the member for Markham's comment that this legislation -- and it is clear from reading it -- is not designed to inhibit uses of fax technology where it is appropriate. Far be it from me to support legislation that would inhibit people from faxing their government members or opposition members about issues that are important and dear to them.

Surely this type of legislation would not inhibit people from faxing Ontario Hydro about the fact that the chairman of Ontario Hydro is making $400,000 a year. That is surely something that should get people concerned and irate enough that they would not only fax but fax frequently, and fax with some vehemence, about their objection to that sort of obscenity at a point in time when there are a whole lot of people not working in this province and a whole lot of people making a whole lot less. I know people who would do it for half the price.

I suspect it is not the intention of the member for Markham, and it certainly is not mine -- because I am supporting the legislation -- to suggest that it should, can or is in any way intended to inhibit or prohibit people from faxing their concern about exorbitant salaries at a time of overall restraint.

I am convinced it is not intended to inhibit people from faxing their concern to the government, to the Premier's office and perhaps to the office of the Minister of Financial Institutions about the pending changes, as we were promised, in the auto insurance legislation, and about the fact that people out there in Ontario are really concerned that we are not going to keep our promise to restore the right of innocent accident victims to sue. Those people should be encouraged to fax, and fax frequently and fax articulately.

I know that a young fellow from Welland, Jeff Tremblay, did not fax me a letter but wrote me one and sent it through the mail from Roach Avenue in Welland. Jeff Tremblay is a sea cadet in 141 Bellerophon unit there. He writes as a very socially conscious young person, a very community-minded young person who is obviously keeping tabs on what is happening in this Legislature. Members should not think for a moment that people are not watching. They are watching and are concerned and are prepared to be critical, if need be.

Jeff Tremblay, from Roach Avenue in Welland, writes with concern about what has happened with the government's position on automobile insurance legislation, and I know that he is going to be concerned enough, if he has access to a fax machine, to fax those same concerns to the Premier and to as many people as he can reach through that same technology.

As I wrap up, I merely remind people once again that it is at 8 o'clock in Markham, at the Markham Theatre, 171 Town Centre Boulevard. Also, at 7 o'clock on Rogers Community 10, there will be a live program dealing with the issue of auto insurance. There will be Helen Anderson from the Consumers' Association of Canada, consumer advocate; Barb Baptiste from the Rehabilitation Management group here in Toronto, who performed an outstanding role of leadership in the right of innocent accident victims; John McLeish from a law firm; Judy Maddocks, regional manager of Royal Insurance, and myself.

We will be participating at 7 o'clock this evening on cable 10, a live program which I believe will also entail a phone-in component, so people are encouraged to watch that and to participate in the debate.

I did mention that I support the legislation. I want to thank Mr Cousens for his interest in the issue, motivated as he was to bring this legislation forward, and I want to thank the NDP caucus for letting me rise and speak on this issue. I hope I have not offended anybody, but we will let the chips fall where they may.

Mr Curling: I want to thank the honourable member for Markham for introducing this. I cannot say I am excited about the bill he has introduced, but I can understand why he is doing it. As a matter of fact, I think his intentions are quite honourabl, and I know that most of the things he has done are honourable.

The reason I cannot get excited about it is that there are so many pressing things happening right now in our society, especially in the jurisdiction of human rights, that on a morning like this it would be wonderful to be in this House and have a private member's bill that would talk about some of the things, such as human rights, that are so neglected and which we cannot get the government to do. Quite naturally, some of the private members may bring that forward. I am not looking forward to the government bringing it forward, because as I said, from the government point of view, it is lax in its activities.

I would have hoped that the Conservative member who has brought this forward would have brought forward some human rights issues.

The bill is about, are we going to respect the unsolicitated facsimile transmissions that come through on the machines here? While I was hearing both members speak, our great member the defender of the auto insurance act and the member for Markham, I was a bit confused that maybe one is the Conservative and the other is the socialist.

To say that we will stop the flow of faxes coming through, to say to someone who would like to send you something on a fax machine, "It's going to waste paper because it was unsolicited," I thought this was a free enterprise system and that people would like to send you something and solicit your concern. In other words, as my honourable friend knows, it is like the telephone. I could equate the fax machine with a telephone. If you do not want it you can unlist your fax machine number. The fax machine is just like the telephone. You could take the fax machine from your constituency office, take it home, plug it into your telephone line and ask your friends to fax you something.

How we are going to stop that will be quite difficult. There is one other thing about it too. How would we monitor this? How would we police this bill and charge $1,000 for those who have violated the act? I do not know if we have any precedent on this. He has shown some precedents in the United States that have been instituted where they have restricted fax. Perhaps we should have done that for the junk mail that comes to our home.

I am not talking about junk mail, as the member has categorized it, as mail coming from a member of Parliament; not at all. I think that with the things I send out, it is a loss if people have thrown them into the garbage. It is good information. It is information about the government's mismanagement of funds. It is information about where we are going on human rights. It is information on some of the wonderful positions that are put forward by my colleagues here. I do not consider it junk mail, but we know the amount of junk mail that arrives at our doorsteps.

I cannot see how we would ever police this in our homes or in our businesses. A willing buyer and a willing seller: What would we do, for instance, if one phoned you and asked, "Are you selling your home?" or, "Would you like to buy a certain product?" I thought the Conservative government would be excited about that, because that is the kind of market we want, but I am hearing the honourable member saying we should cut that off. Therefore, I am very confused. I would have expected that this kind of information and this type of bill would come from over on that side of the fence.

Even if we were able to put this through, what law could we put in? Does it fall under federal jurisdiction or provincial jurisdiction? From my understanding, it comes under federal jurisdiction under telecommunications, so therefore we should put that forward. Members will recall that, I think, last year this bill was introduced for first reading and it died on the table. Here we are putting forward the same bill and he hopesfor it to be successful.

Mr Cousens: It wasn't debated last time.

Mr Curling: It did not reach as far as being debated, as a matter of fact, as the honourable member reminded me. We have a chance to debate it this time, a waste of time, I feel, honestly. There are such other pressing needs, pressing issues, that we could deal with.

The fax machine is a very good technological advancement today. The members actually saw the display by the post office. Our mail is coming late and there are the strikes. The fax machine will never strike unless it breaks down mechanically. It is a pity we cannot send our cheques through the fax; I think they would come much quicker.

I feel that to have this restriction on the fax machine would be extremely bad for business itself. As I said, I tried to get excited about this. I ask the honourable member, if he gets a chance to do another private member's bill, to do something about human rights. He is quite an advocate for having human rights issues advanced. We could work together on all sides of the fence here, the Liberals and also the Conservatives -- maybe we will be able to push aside this rhetoric that also comes from the government from time to time -- to do something and use the time, instead of trying to restrict unsolicited fax machine messages, to do human rights and other issues.

We also hope that as the members look at this bill itself, and I am sure they have almost another eight minutes in which to speak on this matter, we could hear from them as to some of the issues that would be helpful. We could send very good information around instead of restricting it.

I will not speak very long on this bill. I just want to put it on the record that I -- of course it is a private member's bill and all members may choose not to speak because they do not find other things to say on this -- that I hope the honourable member himself will find it within himself to say, "Having heard these discussions, there are other, more pressing issues to do than trying to restrict the fax machine."

Mr McLean: I am pleased today to stand in my place and support Bill 134,

An Act respecting Unsolicited Facsimile Transmissions. It is interesting to note that the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario has indicated the problem we are having with faxes, the large number of unsolicited advertisements that are coming into business offices. Sidney Linden, Ontario's Information and Privacy Commissioner, said he believes Ontario is the first jurisdiction to issue rulings with regard to the number of faxes that are coming into offices.

Junk fax is a reality and junk fax is something like junk mail: It is only junk if the message is not appropriate for the person who is receiving it. When we look at some of the results of some of the questionnaires that have been sent out, it said, "Should there be regulations protecting the public from advertising businesses by fax machines?" Some 83% of the people who were asked that question indicated there should be, so there is an awareness out there.

But we do not want to get the notion that they should not be faxing ministries or sending faxes to ministers on anything that is pertinent to what they believe to be important to them. I think that is why the fax machines are there. We all use them.

The essence of this bill is to try to slow down on junk faxes for advertising. There are two states, Connecticut and Maryland, that have passed legislation which prohibits people from sending unsolicited fax messages without prior approval. There are several statistics now where we see that in North America there are going to be some 11 million fax machines by 1993. It is becoming a major issue. When people and businesses want to advertise, they will want to now use the fax machine for advertising.

The other aspect of the whole issue is that looking at the environment, the amount of waste paper that comes out of fax machines can be astronomical. It certainly can affect the amount of garbage we are putting in and not recycling. That is another major issue to it.

Ontario has been urged to solve the junk fax problem. That is what I started out with, talking about the privacy commissioner who has indicated there is a problem here. Junk fax is a reality and I commend the member this morning for bringing this bill through to make the people out there aware of what is happening with the large number and increase in fax machines that are being put in offices and homes around this province. We are making it available for advertising people to be able to use the fax machine for advertising. That is really not, in my estimation, what faxes were meant for.

They were meant for businesses to carry on their day-to-day business and meant for people such as us as legislators to deal with the concerns of our constituents in a more appropriate and faster manner.

I want to make it very clear that Bill 134 has its place. It is great that we are debating it here today and bringing if before this Legislature. I am sure honourable members here will support this bill because it is a step in the right direction and it is a good start.

The purpose of the bill is to prohibit the sending of unsolicited transmissions for the purpose of commercial solicitation. The prohibition would not apply to transmissions made in the course of ongoing negotiations or a pre-existing business relationship with the person receiving the transmission. In essence, junk fax is a reality. It is not an epidemic yet, but this bill will bring it to the attention of the people. We do hope it will not become an epidemic.

Mr Frankford: I personally enjoy being part of Marshall McLuhan's electronic village. I really rather like receiving faxes, either at 281-2360, which is my constituency office, or at 325-7128, which I happen to share with a number of my colleagues, including the member for Welland-Thorold. He might well be reading my faxes or I might be reading his. I think this is all part of the process of open government which our party is committed to.

I think faxing saves me being there. I would really encourage faxing. I am rather surprised -- and I echo the remarks of my colleague the member for Scarborough North -- that the supposed party of business takes this attitude. Advertising is an important part of a business economy and the member's bill seems to discriminate very much against an important part of small business.

The member quotes some study saying that 80% of people oppose it. I did not gather who these people are who oppose it, whether they are people with faxes, whether they are businesses, whether they are small businesses, whether they are members of Parliament, whether they are the executive of the Conservative Party. Perhaps he will enlighten us later on.

Our party certainly stands for openness and we certainly, as has been stated many times, wish to help small business. I think the member who brought in this bill may wish to reconsider the impact his bill would have on small business. Furthermore, it would seem that this bill could only be policed within our province. I would assume we have no way of policing faxes that come in across the border.

I wonder whether the impact of the member's bill would be to drive some of these hardworking small businessmen over to paying phone charges to the phone company in Buffalo. I would appreciate the member's response on that. We are certainly trying to discourage cross-border leakage of funds. I think the member's bill stands a real risk of doing that.

The other issue that has been raised is the environmental question of the paper. I think the member has not given us the full story about what the technology can provide. I did not hear any mention of the fact that you can have fax boards. One can get paperless transmissions to one's computer. I would suggest this is something which is likely to grow. It is very convenient to type your letter on your computer and fax it straight off to someone else's fax. I think the member should realize that technology keeps on moving faster and that this problem of excess use of paper is unlikely to happen.

Neither of my faxes, 281-2360 or 325-7128, are fax boards at this present time, but I am sure it will be a simple matter to do that. We welcome the member's interest in efficient use of communications, but I think the problems he raised are solvable by technology, not by heavy-handed legislation.

Mr Lessard: What about plain paper fax?

Mr Frankford: Plain paper fax as well, but that is an intermediate step. I am glad my colleague reminded me of that. Anyway I would hope this problem will solve itself by technology, that we will not discriminate against small businesses, and I would ask the member to reconsider the wisdom of this bill he is proposing.

Mr Harnick: It is a pleasure to be able to participate in this debate on a matter that I might say has been studied very carefully by my colleague the member for Markham. He is a person who is concerned about the ability of people to protect themselves and what is private to them. Certainly that is the intention of this act. The intention is that people should have a choice as to whether their privacy should be invaded by people who are taking a technological device and using it for a purpose which it was not intended to be used for.

The fax machine was devised and developed for instantaneous communication between individuals. It was devised so that people could transact business in an efficient and economical manner, so that documents could be exchanged in an efficient and quick manner, and that would be an economical device to business people.

What has happened is that these devices can be programmed so that numbers can be fed into them, and commercial entrepreneurs have found that this machine can transmit messages that will help them sell their products, that will help them put out messages to people who do not want them. It defeats the purpose of the private ability to carry on business. A fax machine was not intended as a billboard, it was not intended as a magazine advertisement, it was intended to permit people to communicate privately.

It is interesting to note that the Information and Privacy Commissioner takes that position when talking about the use of fax machines, even by the government of Ontario. They have indicated that people should not leave fax machines in public places so that the information coming across them becomes available to anybody who might be walking by. They have also indicated that the destination fax number should always be reconfirmed prior to transmission, because unlike erroneously addressed mail which may be returned unopened, documents faxed to the wrong number can be read by several people.

The sender should confirm that the fax was transmitted correctly by checking the fax activity confirmation report. The receiver should check the number of pages received against the transmitted fax cover sheet. All of these recommendations were provided by Ann Cavoukian, the director of compliance with Ontario's Information and Privacy Commissioner. The reason she has set out these guidelines for the use of fax machines by the Ontario government is because she recognizes that the use of a fax machine is a private matter. It is the same as a telephone call. It is the same as personal mail.

It is almost the same as having a meeting in your office with another individual, but doing it by long distance or at some distance.

These documents and these communications should be private. That is why people have purchased fax machines. They have not purchased fax machines to be inundated by entrepreneurs trying to sell their products, by groups trying to convey a message. It is a matter of personal privacy we are dealing with.

That is why I commend the member for Markham, whose act is straightforward. It is very explicit. "No person shall make an unsolicited transmission to a facsimile device for the purpose of encouraging a person to purchase or lease any personal property, real property or services." It does not affect the private business relations between a constituent and the government, a constituent and his member of the Legislature, but it does protect people from being inundated with requests to buy a product, to obtain a service or to purchase any kind of property, be it real or personal.

The act is very explicit, and in fact there is an exemption in the act that it is important to understand. The exemption states, "Subsection (1)" -- which is the subsection I just read -- "does not apply to a person making a transmission in the course of ongoing negotiations or a pre-existing business relationship with the person receiving the transmission."

The act is a sensitive act, because it reflects sensitivity towards the private nature of these machines. That is precisely what these machines were intended for and that is precisely why a couple of states have in fact enacted comparable legislation.

As my colleague the member for Simcoe East indicated, there has been a poll done. The poll states, in a question that was asked, "Should there be regulations protecting the public from advertising by businesses via fax machines?" Eighty-one per cent of the people responding said yes.

I think this act is well thought out. The member for Markham is responding certainly to the public by presenting this act, and I would urge members here today to vote in favour of the act,

An Act respecting Unsolicited Facsimile Transmissions. I would urge them to refer this to a committee so that we can hear representations from the public, which I know will be in favour of maintaining privacy and will be in support of this act. I would urge members, particularly on the government side, to accept the act as set out by the member for Markham and pass it. I think it would be a credit to everyone in this Legislature.

Mr Wessenger: I would like to speak in support of this bill in principle, probably because of my own personal biases in the matter, having practised law, having had a fax machine, having received these transmissions on my fax machine and having had it tied up when I wanted to use it for my purposes rather than somebody else's purposes. Also, I support it in principle because the fact is that it does impose a cost, although minimal, on the recipient. It is not like something that comes through the mail which does not impose such a great cost. Therefore in principle I do support it.

However, I have some questions and concerns about the workability of this legislation. One aspect I have not looked into carefully, but in view of the fact that it is related to telephone communications I have some concern that it might not be authorized constitutionally. It might be something that would require legislation in the federal rather than the provincial area, but hopefully that could be looked into. Certainly I would like to see it looked into in principle. Last, on the whole question of the amount of paper we are inundated with in our society, anything that would cut down that amount of paper I certainly would be in support of.

Mr White: I would like to say a special thanks to the member for Markham. I think this is an excellent bill. It brings up an important issue.

Interjections.

Mr White: Come, come now. This is private members' hour and we have the opportunity to speak to other private members; that is the whole point.

I think this bill speaks to the whole issue of privacy. It speaks to the way in which modern technology is continually intruding into our personal lives on an ever-increasing level. This is an issue that cuts across party lines. Even the member from the third party is talking about intrusion by business into other people's lives. We certainly see that constantly. We see the opportunities for people's sense of themselves continually encroached upon. Continually we find ourselves withdrawing into huddling spaces in our homes, and even home is no longer a haven in a heartless world but an area where still we have encroachments, these electronic ones.

To draw a barrier such as this law suggests is an excellent one. It allows us to be sure the tools we use are our tools, not something which can be used to inflict unnecessary junk mail, junk electronics upon us.

Along the lines that the member for Simcoe Centre mentioned there may be some problems with the law, but I think generally it was well drafted. I want to compliment the member for bringing this to our attention, and this debate.

Mr Cousens: I thank all speakers who have participated in this debate and I appreciate the guidance all have given. I do not think this is the bill that is going to change the world. I look forward to human rights issues and other issues to be debated as well. This floor is used for many things, but the floor of this House needs to discuss more of the business problems that are being encountered today. As one who has a business background, I believe an imperative should be upon all of us to see what we can do to help to improve the environment for business to prosper and succeed.

That is the intent behind this bill. It is more of a symbol of the fact that government is there not always to get in the way of business. I realize this bill has certain restrictions around it, but there are more people out there in business who want us to intervene in this kind of way.

The member for Simcoe Centre raises a point; it was raised by a few others. If there is a question of federal and provincial jurisdiction on this, then extra time will be taken and needed to assure that we are not intervening in a federal area of responsibility. I am sensitive to that. It could well have to be reviewed in a number of ways before it could become law, and I accept the fact that things do not happen overnight in dealing with government matters.

I thank the member for Welland-Thorold for his comments and for going to Markham tonight. I am going to be at the opening of the Markham fair. The Markham fair is on this evening and I look forward to being at that. At least we have two MPPs in town tonight doing the right thing.

Mr Kormos: Eight o'clock, Markham town hall.

Mr Cousens: Eight o'clock, Markham town hall for the other function. I am receiving his fax for the Slovak ensemble.

Also, I went and took a small poll of the pages, and most of them have sent transmissions by fax, so I had better realize it is really pervasive. Technology is with us.

I thank the members of the Legislature for their time on this debate. The spirit of it is right. If we can vote the right way, we can at least lead it another step further, and the people of Ontario will have a chance to see we are not all just thinking about things that pertain to other matters, but that there are things that are pertinent to the world of business.

We in the Legislature have a chance to give that kind of leadership. It is not always that we have an opportunity to do that, because of the financial matters that are facing us, the environmental matters; we know there is a large cross-section of things. When you compare this bill to those others, I know it does not match in importance to them. It does as a symbol to the business community.

I am getting the signal that time is almost up.

This is an opportunity for us to make a statement to the business community. It says we as members of the Legislature are concerned and interested in what business needs to be successful. I do not see this as a bill in which we are trying to take away the rights of people. I get the smile of my friend the member for Scarborough North. He would like me to believe for a moment that I would try to take rights away. When it comes to junk mail and junk faxes I believe there is a certain right we have to be protected from that kind of intrusion, as was so well articulated by the member for Willowdale.

This House is a rich place. We will become the richer to the whole business community when we are able to take an hour, as we have now, to consider the impact we can have to make it a better world for business to prosper and succeed. I thank the members for Welland-Thorold, Scarborough North, Simcoe East, Scarborough East, Willowdale, Simcoe Centre and Durham Centre for all their comments. I think they will be helpful and I know the business community will be awaiting the decision we will be making here in another hour when it is time to resolve this issue. I thank the Speaker and all members who have participated in this debate.

PUBLIC SECTOR FOOD SERVICES ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES SERVICES D'ALIMENTATION DU SECTEUR PUBLIC

Ms Haeck moved second reading of Bill 133,

An Act to require Public Sector Institutions to serve Food grown in Ontario.

Mme Haeck propose la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 133, Loi exigeant des etablissements du secteur public qu'ils servent des aliments cultives en Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for St Catharines-Brock has 10 minutes for her opening remarks.

Ms Haeck: It is a privilege to speak on this subject, the purchase of Ontario food products by the broader Ontario public service. For the farmers of St Catharines-Brock and the entire Niagara Peninsula, this issue is very basic. The Ontario government should support the Ontario farmers by purchasing the food produced by those farmers.

It has become obvious to me and to other government members that something has to be done to help the Ontario grower. Other governments have approached this issue by means of a direct subsidy. Farmers really do not want a subsidy; they want the farm to produce the food their neighbours are going to purchase and enjoy. Farmers find it more than a little strange that the very government that should be helping them does not set the example by making such domestic purchases. It really upsets farmers from my area when they come to Toronto and see farm produce not being utilized even though locally produced food and wine are very much in evidence in the stores.

One farmer told me about coming to Toronto on business at this Legislature. While here, he made the point of finding out the origin of the foods being served here. To take only one example, he was disappointed and frustrated to find that German brandy is served. There is a brandy distillery in Niagara, Rieder Distillery of Grimsby in the Lincoln riding. By the way, that distillery makes the effort to buy the fruit of local growers to make its product. The growers of the Niagara Peninsula, all of them Ontario taxpayers, want to see this government live by this very same buy-Ontario principle.

In looking for guidelines relating to procurement within the public service, I found that very few do exist, and none relating to the origin of products bought. There is no central agency responsible for purchasing. The vast majority of items this government needs and uses are bought through individual tendering processes carried out within each ministry. There is no way to easily oversee purchases.

Farmers in my area say categorically that this government should provide an example by the kind of product it uses. Farmers in the Niagara Peninsula have impressed on the regional municipality of Niagara the idea that this municipal government should have a buy-Ontario policy. In turn, farmers throughout Ontario are anxious for this government to take the lead on this issue.

Local growers have pointed out that the US government is the largest purchaser of food products in the US. Those products are utilized by military personnel, school programs etc. The origin of these products is America. Why would we, as Ontarians, want to support a foreign jurisdiction with our tax dollars by buying American food? I do not understand that and, quite simply, the growers of St Catharines-Brock do not either.

Let me reiterate the theme of my private members' bill, which is that transfer agencies such as school boards, universities, hospitals and correctional facilities must make the effort to buy the food products grown and processed here in Ontario.

The bill does not say that these facilities are forced to buy Ontario field tomatoes in January. There are none. It does not even require them to buy the institutional-size container of tomatoes processed by an Ontario cannery, because there are none of those either. Members of this House may be surprised that the food processing industry in Ontario has shrunk to such a degree that products like institutional-sized containers of anything are not prepared in Ontario.

This bill allows institutions the flexibility of continuing to purchase such products from foreign suppliers. What it does is to require these institutions to look at the Ontario market first to determine what kinds of products are available that meet their needs. For example, Canadian Canners of St Davids still cans fruit cocktail using local cling peaches. A hospital or a school board may be able to utilize the individual sizes canned in this facility.

Canada and Ontario are net food importers. I find this shocking. I grew up in the Niagara Peninsula where it is easy to indulge in the pleasures of tree-ripened fruit, something I personally enjoy and cherish. There is a great variety of fruit grown there, from strawberries to peaches and pears. Taste and quality are second to none. Recent commercials by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food bring this home. Local produce is of high quality and good taste, and those who purchase it help to keep the farmer farming. The Ministry of Agriculture and Food's slogan, "Buy the food that your neighbour grows," is most accurate. Support local farmers; buy local food products.

I have been asked by members of the public if this bill would see an increase in the costs paid out by the institutions involved. No, the cost of food in Ontario is very competitive within the North American market. Let me expand on this point.

Over the last 10 years, the brokers who purchase food products from Ontario growers have used the threat of US imports to keep the price of fresh fruit and vegetables low. In the case of peaches, only about 4% may come from the United States, but local producers receive a similar price to that of the US producers even though input costs, as well as the seasonal nature of the product, dictate a slighter higher price.

I will not hide my own distaste for the free trade agreement and the problems it has caused. That agreement has brought great hardship to the farming community in the Niagara Peninsula. However, it is clear that for the immediate future the free trade agreement will remain in existence. That means that this kind of blackmail, with the brokers telling growers they must lower their prices to the US level or be shut out of the market, will continue.

I believe it is essential to support our own, to support the important aspect of Ontario life that farming is by making sure Ontario farmers have economic support. Buy the food that your neighbour grows.

What stands in the way of seeing this legislation implemented? There are several things. One is the fact that some suppliers have long-term contracts with those foreign facilities. The same situation exists within the grocery chains. There are very few independent stores left. Where they do exist, local fruit and vegetables usually predominate. The larger food chains have established contracts with brokers in California and Mexico to purchase the products produced there. Only through activism have local farmers been able to convince managers of these large chains to display more Ontario-grown produce. That is a battle this bill does not fight.

I hope that as a result of this debate shoppers will look more carefully at the place of origin of products they consider purchasing. Remember that price is not the obstacle. Availability of the products, whether the store stocks Ontario produce, will likely be the obstacle. Ask for Ontario food products.

Another hurdle that Ontario food products must overcome is bias. I am not sure if all members of the House realize the wide variety of fruits grown in the Niagara Peninsula. I would guess they are unaware that a kiwi variety has been developed to withstand the rigours of a Canadian winter. I know this because my parents have purchased such vines from a local grower and they have enjoyed their harvest very much.

Do members know that the nectarines of the Niagara Peninsula are absolutely luscious? They may not be as large as those grown in California, but they taste far superior.

Similarly many in Ontario and Canada still have the idea that only French wines are good. The wine industry in Ontario has won for Canada the distinction of being the only country to have won 12 gold medals in a single category at a recent wine tasting. The Ontario wineries which produce ice wine have been richly rewarded by these medals. This liquid gold is now enjoyed worldwide, yet the biggest hurdle is at home. Would members believe that the ambassadorial usage of Ontario wines is almost nil?

I see my time has elapsed, so I will continue a little later.

Mr Cleary: With some reservations, I commend the member for St Catharines-Brock in her efforts to support Ontario agriculture. I might note that I was also pleased in 1988 to support the former member for St Catharines-Brock, Mike Dietsch, who initiated discussions on this very topic.

I believe customers should have the opportunity to enjoy quality Ontario food at reasonable prices and be encouraged to do so through effective marketing. This province is very fortunate to have some 200 different products produced on some 14 million acres of land, which generates some $17 billion and creates some 583,000 jobs.

Despite the significance of agriculture in Ontario, it is evident that farmers across this province are in desperate economic conditions. For the past two weeks I have been participating in the emergency hearings before the standing committee on resources development over the crisis facing rural Ontario. With significantly decreasing prices and extensive crop damage, the income of many farmers has dropped by 30% to 60%, while input costs are ever increasing. I can speak from experience. While some of the farmers are selling their produce this year for the same price they got 17 years ago, some do not have any income at all because of severe drought damage.

Farmers are also concerned about cross-border shopping. Canadian shoppers continue to head to the United States for poultry, milk, cheese and novelty dairy products. These same-day Canadian travellers are shrinking the Canadian agriculture market by purchasing products in the United States, therefore causing serious problems to our agricultural community -- and not only agriculture, but the transporters, veterinarians, equipment dealers and feed suppliers.

This government, and especially the member for St Catharines-Brock, has only escalated the problem by increasing the taxes on fuel, one of the leading causes of cross-border shopping. While customs officials currently allow Canadians to import $20 in dairy products with a special import permit, the Ontario Milk Marketing Board is seeking tighter restrictions.

Fruit and vegetable growers also face stiff competition worldwide. Canadian grocers sell products from the United States, Mexico, Peru, Portugal, Argentina, New Zealand, Israel, Chile, Australia, Morocco and France, most of the time at cheaper prices. Despite high demand, Ontario prices have to stay competitive with 33-cents-a-pound peaches from New Jersey which area farmers say are of very poor quality. The same goes for strawberries.

It should be noted that one of the major input costs for the horticulture industry is labour. The standard of living is extremely high in Ontario. The agricultural minimum wage is set at $5.40. Subsequently Ontario's agriculture industry often faces strong competition with international labour standards. To cite one example, 56% of the cost of producing asparagus is labour. In Washington state, labour costs are one third of what they are in Ontario.

Just recently, the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association informed me that certain countries clearly exploit labour either through the use of illegal aliens or ridiculously low wages. Moreover, the fruit and vegetable growers have indicated that the increased minimum wage, particularly for students, will increase overall costs of production. Subsequently more will undoubtedly be brought into Canada at cheaper prices.

I can appreciate that some Ontarians may question the necessity of supporting Ontario farmers when they can buy from South America or some other country much cheaper. I encourage Ontarians to purchase from our province, not just to support the province's economy but also to relish the superior quality of Ontario products.

Supply-managed commodities are seeking the protection of

article XI during the ongoing GATT negotiations, while exporters are attempting to deal with free trade and other international pressures.

Some farmers have indicated that the Canada-US free trade agreement, as well as the trilateral discussions with Mexico, cast additional uncertainty for Ontario agriculture, particularly in the fruit and vegetable industry and other commodities that have a climatic advantage in the south or that are labour intensive.

Obviously, farmers are facing significant pressures provincially, nationally and internationally. I believe there is a clear need to support the farmers of Ontario. To do this, politicians and consumers must come to grips with the importance of agriculture, just to ensure the minimal survival of our communities.

I might take this opportunity to commend the Ontario Food Terminal that services importers, distributors, retailers and exporters.

In any event, I applaud such efforts as the upcoming Agri-Food Week to be held October 6-12. This celebration enters its ninth year.

As well, I hope the agriculture in the classroom program will inform urban students and educators of the importance of agriculture. Just this Monday I was at the inaugural meeting at the Ontario agricultural meeting in Milton.

I also appreciate the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food's recent campaign comparing locally grown produce with US-grown produce.

I believe these are effective and necessary vehicles to promote Ontario agriculture. General awareness campaigns, combined with current proposals brought forward by both the past member and the present member for St Catharines-Brock, are positive developments for this province's agriculture industry. I would like to merely caution that this type of proposal also has drawbacks. Indeed, Bill 133 will certainly hold many challenges in attempting to implement it while adhering to fair trade regulations, both nationally and internationally.

Mr McLean: Being a farmer, I am pleased to stand in my place today and speak on Bill 133,

An Act to require Public Sector Institutions to serve Food grown in Ontario.

Some years ago we had institutions across this province that had farms attached to them, and food, vegetables, beef, pigs and dairy products were raised on these farms. I see some of the smaller institutions today are reinstituting that idea and I think it would be appropriate if this government took the issue and dealt further with it in order to have more homegrown food for people in our institutions.

The institution in Orillia also worked in conjunction with the hospital at that time. In Penetanguishene we had the mental health centre there, Oak Ridge, and there was also a farm there at one time which produced homegrown food for the residents who lived there. In Burwash it was much the same idea. I think that is something we should be looking at again.

Bill 133 indicates there are exemptions allowed with regard to fruit and vegetables that are not grown in Ontario, but I think if one took the time to go to the Ontario Food Terminal here in Toronto and observed the amount of food that is coming into that terminal from out of province, it would probably make one stop and think. The number of transports and tractor-trailers that come in there from all over the United States is amazing.

To say that we want the institutions to supply and are going to penalize them if they do not supply food totally produced in Ontario, that an institution would have its funding cut or "could have its funding eliminated or reduced if it was found that a facility on its premises was providing non-Ontario food or wine," is a pretty major statement to make when dealing with the people of this province and the food terminal, especially here in Toronto, where the food comes in on a daily basis.

I applaud the member for bringing this bill forward to make the people in Ontario aware that we should be buying food produced in Ontario. I have reservations many times when I look at some of the cancer statistics that we see and when we look at some of the major heavy-growing areas of vegetables and see that fertilizer is applied at the rate of 500 to 600 pounds to the acre, which gives me some concern. Maybe we are doing it to ourselves, so to speak, with regard to the amount of fertilizer we are using to grow our food and vegetables.

I guess when we look at the extra taxes that are being put on farmers, such as the gasoline tax, that is really one area where this government could look at helping the farmers to produce food at a more reasonable cost. When we look at statistics today and see the number of farmers who are losing their farms, who are going out of business because of what they are getting for their product, that is where the problem lies.

I would like to see the Ministry of Agriculture and Food somehow come up with some structure such as we have in the dairy business. The Ontario Milk Marketing Board saved the dairy industry. I was in the dairy business before that marketing board came in, and I know what it was like to accept a 60-40 payout, a low test. The marketing board saved that industry. I said some time ago that the only way farmers in beef and pork are ever going to get paid for their product is to be involved in some form of a marketing system whereby your input costs are attached to the price that you get for the goods you are producing.

As I heard the Ontario Federation of Agriculture say yesterday, "If the auto market was in trouble, if they were severely losing jobs in the auto industry, governments would be there to help." We are losing farmer after farmer in the agricultural industry, and who is there giving them a hand? It is not as severe as if it was in the auto industry.

When we look at this bill, while I applaud the member for bringing it forward, there are many other aspects that are involved in the agricultural area whereby we could help the farmers. I only mentioned one or two, such as the gas tax. The farm tax rebate should not be on the land at all. Farmers pay their taxes and then they have to come along and apply for a rebate. It is handled totally wrong, and it would be nice if the government would take the initiative to bring it in whereby it would be done once and for all instead of just negotiating year after year.

I want to thank the member for this resolution. I will be supporting it and I hope it will be a further initiative we can deal with in the agricultural industry.

Mr Hayes: I rise in support of the broad intent of this bill. This government does and will continue to support Ontario farmers through its policies and actions. My colleague the member for St Catharines-Brock, in her remarks and in Bill 133, has underlined some of the basic concerns facing our farm families in our rural communities.

As my colleague has stated and as we all well know, farmers do not like subsidies. The minister's announcement of a special assistance package of $35.5 million is needed and it will help many farmers throughout Ontario, including the hard-pressed fruit and vegetable industries, such as those in Niagara and in Essex-Kent.

The farm leaders in this province were pleased by the government's initiative. A lot more has to be done. I would trust that our federal government fulfils its commitment also to assist the farmers in Ontario and Canadian farmers in this period of serious financial difficulty.

My colleague is also correct about the subsidies, but emergency assistance packages are geared only for the short term. The real solution must be found in a fair marketplace for all food products in Ontario.

I fully share my colleague's dismay that Ontario is a net importer of foods. I know all too well the impact of the Canada-US free trade agreement on our food processing sector and on the ability of our fruit and vegetables to compete successfully and fairly in our own markets. We must and should do more to assist our producers in our own markets. We must make our consumers, retailers and institutions, private and public, more aware of the quality, the freshness, the quantity and the competitiveness of our own fresh foods and processed foods.

My colleague the member for St Catharines-Brock has stated that it is not our intent to force or coerce local institutions to buy Ontario products. She has recognized the climatic and legal limits and such limits, but she has also stressed the need to ensure that our consumers, farmers and processors, that the customers are made aware of the bounty of foods that is almost on their doorsteps.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Food has attempted successfully to bring these facts home to Ontario farmers, retailers, food service companies and institutional buyers. In 1991-92, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food will spend close to $5 million on domestic advertising and promoting services through Ontario to support the domestic markets for Ontario growers and processed foods and beverages. I am sure many of the members have seen these new ads linking our farmers, our farm land and our domestic markets.

Moreover, the Foodland Ontario marketing campaign is aimed, by our partnerships with the media, the food retailing sector and our food service sector and joint market research, to help our producers and processors meet the demands of the marketplace.

The Minister of Agriculture and Food, the member for Hastings-Peterborough, has taken a personal interest in the opportunities for farmers and our processors in our own markets. The minister has met with numerous groups, farm processing and retailing, to ensure that a fairer, more prosperous market is available to our industry.

The issue of cross-border shopping, one that affects the Niagara region where my colleague is from, as well as Kent, Essex, Lambton, Sarnia and other areas of Ontario, is partially a symptom of the consumers' focus on perceived price differences rather than the value, quality, diversity and long-term competitive strength of their neighbours.

I think we must take up the challenge of my colleague's proposal. We must encourage, educate and reinforce through our own actions the necessity of supporting our own farmers and processors to ensure a safe, secure, affordable food supply for this generation and generations to follow. The Speaker himself has taken steps in this Legislature which I must compliment him for by promoting the wine industries.

Let us look at our own institution, this Legislature. Can we not encourage the presentation and consumption of Ontario foods in our own dining room and cafeterias? I feel that we should sponsor special events to correspond with a variety of crops and harvesting seasons right here in this Legislature. Such an effort would not only help build awareness with all members of this House and their staffs, but provide us with nutrition and variety.

I recognize that such an effort can only be a small step in the long-term initiative to better secure our markets for our own industry through education, awareness and the commitment to compete fairly and effectively, a commitment our industry has made and will continue to make.

I support the broad intent of this bill, but we must build new linkages and partnerships with all segments of the food industry, private or public. This government has undertaken that role and will continue, as my colleague has recommended, to work with the industries and institutions and our customers to purchase and consume the food that our farmers grow in Ontario.

I know there are other members who want to join in this debate and I do not want to prolong things, but I think it is very important that some of the points I mentioned here about our own institutions -- we have one right here in our riding. A woman came to me and she said she went to that cafeteria and wanted a bacon, lettuce and tomato sandwich. She said the lettuce was from Quebec and the tomatoes were from California. This is right in the middle of our own harvesting season, and these are the things I think we really have to look at.

If we are serious about promoting Ontario, promoting the good-quality food that we have here, we have to do more than just speak about it. I think we have to take some action.

I hope the members from the other side will support this bill and work with us with their ideas so that we can continue to promote Ontario, a small way of helping the farmers and the farm families, to protect the family farms in Ontario.

Mr Cordiano: I am particularly delighted today to have this opportunity to speak on the private member's bill. I think it is important to get the views of what is largely a contingent from the urban centres. I am right smack in the middle of Metro Toronto. I represent the riding of Lawrence, which is in North York. I thought it would be interesting to make some comments on this bill from my perspective, and probably the views of urban dwellers right across the province. I hope I would reflect those views.

I want to support the member's intiative here, because I think it is important in so many ways and in far-reaching ways. I have limited time to speak, but there are a number of issues I want to cover.

First, I think most of our citizens who dwell in the cities do not appreciate what the farmers of this province do for them. The most important thing is that they would certainly provide us with a secure supply of food into the future, when I think that will become more relevant. We have heard a great deal on that, but I think more needs to be said.

The figures are interesting. One in five Ontario jobs results from the agricultural industry, which is quite amazing, when you think about it. That is an incredible economic base.

The other reason I would link the city with the country on this is because farmers are small businessmen. Farmers can understand perhaps as well as small businessmen, wherever they may be, the difficulties which face farmers and small businessmen. There is a great commonality there. I would say to this government the real issue is that we are doing very little for farmers and we are doing very little for small business people who are facing difficult times. I think the policies of this government need to be directed to those very important groups.

Farmers provide one out of every five jobs related directly or indirectly to the agricultural industry. Small business people provide a great deal of employment. In fact, they are the sector that increases employment the most. When we have an expansion, and it will come some time in the future, hopefully not too far, we will rely on those people to create wealth. I think it is important for this government to recognize that. It is not doing enough to recognize that important relationship.

So I say to the member, getting back to her bill, that this government is not doing enough for the farmer. Quite frankly this bill, although worthy and admirable on her part, and I will support it, does not go far enough. I hope she takes that message to the Treasurer and to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. There is a financial crisis among farmers, a deep crisis. It is getting worse. It started many years ago, but now is the time to do something about it.

Look at the retail situation with respect to Sunday shopping, with respect to the new policy that has been brought forward by this government. It is not going to help farmers one little bit. It is going to aggravate the problem. I think the government needs to seriously look at that as a factor contributing to this growing crisis.

In addition to that, the NDP's promise to fund the net income stabilization account did not go far enough; $35 million I believe it was. It created a gap. The amount required was $124 million, and that gap is severe. I think farmers would speak to that and have spoken out saying the government did not support them enough.

If we want a secure food supply into the future and if we want an indigenous agricultural economy that still allows for the independent farmer to exist out there, then we have to bite the bullet and say we are going to support our farmers, not just by the good member's initiative here with her bill that proposes to have public sector institutions support the agricultural industry directly, but I think through additional programs which would go a long way to helping the plight of farmers financially. That is the crux of the issue.

The concern I have with the private member's bill relates to international trade barriers. Of course GATT has a role to play in all this. I would say to the member that there are concerns that we comply with what might result out of the latest GATT negotiations, which have not concluded, and attempt to resolve the whole question of subsidies to the agricultural industry. I would be very careful treading in that area.

I think we would not like to fly in the face of international pressures with respect to trade measures that would be taken reciprocally, shall we say, against our agricultural industry, which exports quite a few of its products around the world as well. So I would be concerned about that.

I would also like to say to the member, as I am running out of time, that her initiative needs to be looked at a little more carefully with respect to how we are going to enforce the provisions of this private member's bill. I think it is one thing to say that we should do this; it is another to say how we are going to go about enforcing and ensuring that our public sector institutions are complying with this initiative, if indeed the government sees fit to bring this forward as a policy of its own.

I commend the member for bringing forward this initiative. I also suggest to her that she lobby really hard for her government to adopt this and other practices which would enhance and promote the agricultural industry in our province.

Mr J. Wilson: It is a pleasure to rise today and speak about the private member's bill,

An Act to require Public Sector Institutions to serve Food grown in Ontario, put forward by the member for St Catharines-Brock. I commend her for bringing that forward.

I know the member to be a good person. I have served on the standing committee on social development with her throughout the summer and found her to be a very conscientious member of this Legislature and one who is very much aware of the needs of her constituents, particularly the farming community in the riding of St Catharines-Brock. Certainly the member is well intentioned with this bill, and it would be difficult for any member of my caucus in the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party not to support the principles of this private member's bill here today.

But it is ironic that this government had to be forced into a debate on the farm financial crisis by the opposition parties, because it went through the first year of its government not spending nearly enough on agriculture and spending money in what we would consider many misdirected areas.

Mr Mills: Give us an example.

Mr J. Wilson: I will be happy to give the member some examples in a few moments.

On Monday of this week the leader of my party, the member for Nipissing, brought forward a resolution to force the government to deal with the farm crisis, and the NDP members in this chamber voted against that. Simply, the leader of my party called upon this government to sign up for NISA this year to make sure farmers receive payments they are entitled to under the federal-provincial program.

It is sad that they voted against my leader's resolution, which was very important and which had specific measures to address the farm crisis, and today they are bringing forward a private member's bill to try to convince the people of Ontario that they are deeply concerned about agriculture.

Yes, the next day in the Legislature, Tuesday, the Treasurer did make an announcement of some $35.5 million for assistance to Ontario farmers, but as you so ably pointed out yourself, Mr Speaker, as the critic for agriculture in the Ontario PC Party, $35.5 million pales compared to the need out there and in comparison to the misdirected spending and priorities of the government.

I point out that the government's payroll for civil servants this year is up 14%; that is $512 million it has given the civil service over the past year. They have also, in addition to that, given $20 million in bonuses to senior civil servants.

When I asked the Treasurer yesterday whether he had any money to help the frail and elderly in nursing homes -- there are some 12 to 15 nursing homes in receivership now, and we know after October 15 there will be hundreds of seniors out on the street if this government fails to address that urgent need in the nursing home industry -- when I asked the Treasurer about financial assistance in that area, he simply said, as he so often says, that my party is bound and determined to pit one group in society against another.

I want to give a message to the government today that when it comes to assistance for farmers or when it comes to assistance for the frail elderly of our society, my party stands behind the frail elderly and farmers any day of the week. If the Treasurer wants in his responses, time and time again, to try to pit us in the public mind one group against the other, we simply say to him it is a question of priorities, and that this party, through its long and proud tradition in the Ontario government, when it was in government and in opposition, has firmly stood behind farmers, and that is the topic of today's debate.

There are 60,000 farm families in this province. Again, $35.5 million pales in comparison to $150 million for 4,500 jobs at de Havilland. Now, I know Bob White makes a lot of the government's decisions and I know the Canadian Auto Workers union is exceptionally important to this government, but $150 million for 4,500 jobs at de Havilland is ridiculous. That $150 million would go a lot further than $35.5 million in helping to address the farm crisis and some 60,000 families.

Farmers in my riding can only dream of jobs as well-paying as those at de Havilland that this government has decided to prop up.

Mr Mammoliti: Are you saying they're not worth while?

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. You will have opportunities to address this.

Mr J. Wilson: This government has decided to give $250 million for 600 jobs in Elliot Lake -- that is a pretty expensive job-maintaining program, I guess you would call it -- and $35.5 million for 60,000 farm families that are in serious need in this province.

Again, my farmers and the farmers in the riding of Brant-Haldimand, whom I and many of my colleagues met with recently, can only dream of jobs as good as those at the mines in the north and at de Havilland here in Toronto.

Also, Mr Speaker, you might point out that $5 million was spent by this government over the past few months to study auto insurance, and for what? It has decided to retract on it after $5 million in studies. My recommendation to them, as a former political assistant, would be to simply go to the library and read all the studies that are there. There are decades of them on auto insurance. They did not need to spend $5 million hiring consultants and wasting money that could have gone towards helping to solve the farm crisis.

Any day of the week, my party stands behind farmers and the truly needy in this province. And we understand priority setting, and this government really does not have a clue how to set priorities. We see the Treasurer yesterday having to retract and reshuffle the deck to try and come up with some cost savings which we know are not cost savings but simply deferrals to next year's deficit.

We understand that the Treasurer is admitting that he has made mistakes over the past 12 months, that his April budget was a disaster and that the government is trying to change direction. I simply say that we are here to help, if they need our assistance and our suggestions.

Mr Hayes: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I know that in this House it is a democratic system, and we all have the right to get up and say what we feel. But I think it is really a crime when we have a bill, such an important bill as this, talking about promoting the food of Ontario growers --

The Acting Speaker: I am sorry. That is not a point of order.

Mr J. Wilson: The reason I point out the misdirected priorities of this government is that we know 60,000 farm families should come before the millions of dollars it is spending on all kinds of other very expensive job creation and maintaining programs.

I ask the member for St Catharines-Brock whether she has thought of the implications for this bill on the international scene. In my opinion, from my past experience with GATT, this would likely be ruled another trade barrier. Farmers do not need more trade barriers. Our farmers can compete with the best in the world if they are given the financial support to be on a level playing field with other provinces and with all other jurisdictions in this world. The government has to put more money into financial assistance for farmers.

We have to make an attempt to compete with other treasuries and, at the same time, continue the efforts and redouble efforts to get down those trade-distorting subsidies that are so common in the European Community and the United States.

In wrapping up, I do commend the member. She has the right principle, the right thrust. She is going to bat for her constituents, which is commendable, but I would ask her, in her remarks, to respond to the international implications of this and simply whether the bill would be legal if it were passed.

Mr Dadamo: I would like to make something extremely clear this morning. I want to mention that the problems with farmers and what they face today did not start overnight, did not start September 6, 1990. The third party was in power for many years, the Liberals for a number of years. All of a sudden we are faced with this dilemma and trying to do the best we can.

Let me mention also that it was an initiative of our government this past week and the Minister of Agriculture and Food, who made the announcement of $35.5 million for the farmers, and we are doing the best we can, and hopefully we can find some more money for the farmers that we could give to them in the coming months and the coming year. We are doing the best we can.

I also want to say that I am honoured to be speaking on Bill 133 this morning.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The Speaker has a great deal of difficulty hearing the member. The honourable member for Windsor-Sandwich has the floor.

Mr Dadamo: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I also want to say that I am privileged to be a member of the rural advisory committee with 24 members of the government side. We meet regularly to talk about the problems of the farmers and we do a lot of work on behalf of the farmers. The members behind me, the member for Essex-Kent and the member for Chatham-Kent, who are also on the rural advisory committee and work along with us, do a lot of work.

This bill put forth by my colleague the member for St Catharines-Brock is in my opinion a very timely and strong statement which this Legislature, and especially the two opposition parties, should take very seriously this morning. This past week the Treasurer announced a commitment and a strong confirmation on behalf of the government that we would aid rural Ontario. The reaching out to our farmers by way of $35.5 million is a strong initiative.

I sat here this morning listening to the member for Simcoe West. I am not sure whether he is going to support the farmers. It was hard to make out what he was saying in the seven or eight minutes he was standing in this House. I feel compelled to support the bill of the member for St Catharines-Brock, which aims at serving Ontario-grown foods in the public sector.

The timing of this bill is impeccable. My colleague should be commended for caring for the agriculture industry in Ontario. I think we should all be supporting the farmers. We should all be buying food from Ontario. I do not think that is even debatable, considering what the farmers in rural Ontario are going through these days.

Bill 133,

An Act to require Public Sector Institutions to serve Food grown in Ontario, is aimed in the right direction for the citizens of Ontario. As well, eating food grown here in our own backyard will only enhance our commitment to rural Ontario. We care strongly for and we should be supporting their hard work, their toil, their labour on the farms and their persistence in maintaining high standards in food products in this province. We should be supporting them.

I also want to mention a couple of things before my time runs out. Agri-Food Week celebrates Ontario food -- glorious food, I would like to add. It of course is a showcase for the variety, the quality, the freshness and the abundance of the food we eat. We should be thankful the farmers are working for us and are supplying us food. We are blessed to have farmers doing these things for us, even though a lot of them are not making any money in Ontario. Agri-Food Week is an annual harvest celebration in October. It is the week before Thanksgiving. We hope everybody buys pumpkins grown in Ontario.

In closing, Ontario farmers and their families work hard to grow the food we eat. The member for St Catharines-Brock is indeed intelligent for introducing such a timely bill. I would like to urge members of this House to think this through and support Bill 133. Otherwise, I think it would be tough to go home this weekend. For those watching throughout the province this morning -- I am sure many farmers and their families are since it could be raining in parts of the province today and they are indoors -- our hats are off to them. We hope the $35.5 million will aid them to some point.

They can rest assured this government is working hard for them and will continue to work for them, because they are integral to the province.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for St Catharines-Brock has two minutes to sum up.

Ms Haeck: I thought we were going to hear some more interesting comments from the members opposite, but I think we have some good points on which to close.

I would like to address the issue the member from the Liberal benches raised with regard to labour costs. It is absolutely necessary for me to recognize the fact that horticulture is a labour-intensive area, a sector of agriculture. The minister recognizes this. In fact, on a recent farm tour to my riding he indicated to the farmers that he and the Minister of Labour are working very hard to minimize the impact of the recent proposed minimum wage legislation.

I also want to recognize that farmers are the first environmentalists. Definitely the farmers in my area feel very strongly about the issues the member for Simcoe East raised. This is something they take very much to heart.

I would like to also indicate that it is nothing new to the farming sector that this recession exists. It has been in existence for over 10 years. I remember that for even longer than that farming has always had some very strong issues. We as the government definitely recognize that this issue is not going to be dealt with overnight. What we are saying is, "Here's some short-term assistance and the long term is something that is very clearly being addressed."

In conclusion, I have presented this bill in support of Ontario food producers, the farmers, the food processers and Ontario wineries. I know my colleagues on the government side who have rural components in their ridings feel as strongly about this bill as I do. I ask all members of this House, the opposition and my fellows here on the government side, to support this bill. By doing so they will send a very positive message of support to an absolutely vital group in our society, our farmers. Their support is needed to see agriculture survive in Ontario. They should buy the food that their neighbours grow.

The Acting Speaker: This is the allotted time for ballot item 34, Bill 133. We have a small problem in that in the standing orders we cannot vote until 12 o'clock. Do we have agreement of the members present to proceed with ballot items 33 and 34 prior to 12 o'clock?

Agreed to.

UNSOLICITED FACSIMILE TRANSMISSIONS ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES TRANSMISSIONS PAR TELECOPIE NON SOLLICITEES

The Acting Speaker: Mr Cousens has moved second reading of Bill 134.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptee.

Mr Cousens: Mr Speaker, can this be referred to the standing committee on general government?

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member has requested that his bill go to the standing committee on general government. Is it the pleasure of the House that the bill go to the standing committee on general government? Do we have a majority of the members present?

All those in favour of Mr Cousens's motion going to the standing committee on general government will rise and remain standing. Those opposed to the bill going to the standing committee on general government will please rise and remain standing.

We do not have a majority for the bill going to the standing committee on general government. Therefore, it will go to committee of the whole House.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

Le projet de loi est defere au comite plenier de la Chambre.

PUBLIC SECTOR FOOD SERVICES ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES SERVICES D'ALIMENTATION DU SECTEUR PUBLIC

The Acting Speaker: Ms Haeck has moved second reading of Bill 133.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptee.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

Le projet de loi est defere au comite plenier de la Chambre.

The House recessed at 1156.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ANNIVERSARY OF GERMAN REUNIFICATION

Mr Daigeler: Today, October 3, is the first anniversary of Germany's reunification and its new date of national celebration. For many Canadians of German origin like myself, this day last year was a momentous occasion. After 50 years of totalitarian suppression, East Germans were finally able to join the democratic and free world community.

Rebuilding the economic, social and political infrastructure in the new German provinces is a difficult task. Many outmoded and pollution-prone factories and shops had to be closed. But I am heartened by the optimistic picture German parliamentarians gave me last night at a friendship dinner here in Toronto.

I also rejoice in the German chancellor's commitment to European integration. At a time when Canada's future is threatened by separatists, it is especially meaningful to hear Chancellor Kohl admit in his October 3 address:

"We achieved reunification under a common European roof. Our freedom and our prosperity are inseparably linked with our membership in the European Community and in the Atlantic alliance. Together with our friends and partners, we want to make our contributions towards building a United States of Europe."

To all Ontarians of German origin, I extend special greetings on this occasion, and to the German people themselves, I wish Godspeed in their rebuilding efforts.

TORONTO BLUE JAYS

Mr Arnott: Stepping up to the plate as the leadoff hitter, I want to congratulate the Toronto Blue Jays for their magnificent win last night at the SkyDome. We can all look forward to even bigger and better victories as the Jays take dead aim on the World Series.

Fifty thousand Ontario residents cannot be wrong. There was a resounding cheer as the American League East champions won their division. There was also a resounding Bronx cheer for the Premier of this province. I have to assume that the cheers in both cases were appropriate.

Not to dwell on politics, though, on such a joyous occasion, I just want to mention here at this time that it was a Premier representing the Progressive Conservative Party that helped to bring the Blue Jay franchise to Toronto.

The attendance record was also a major feature in last night's extravaganza. This is something our left-throwing Premier should keep in mind. His attendance in this Legislature is at the other end of the scale from that of the Blue Jays.

Again, not to dwell on the political, our lefty Premier could take a lesson from the division champs and realize that success does not come from left-fielders alone. We need someone in there pitching for the people, going to bat for the people, covering the bases and hitting home, but not with a tax burden that only a superstar can afford.

The Jays' division title is in no small part due to astute management. This is something our government in left field should keep in mind, before we all have to be dug out.

I am sure all members of the Legislature will join with me in congratulating the Jays on a job well done, and wishing them the very best as they take on the Minnesota Twins for the pennant, and then the World Series. Okay, Blue Jays, let's play ball.

ARTS FESTIVAL

Mr G. Wilson: On Saturday, September 21, I found a pot of gold in my riding of Kingston and The Islands. It was at the end of a rainbow of colourful characters parading through the early morning streets of Kingston to the Grand Theatre. This was the location of the fourth annual Have an Affair with the Arts, sponsored by the Kingston Regional Arts Council.

On display at the Grand was a year's cultural activities concentrated into six hours. The more than 3,000 festival-goers were entertained by actors, dancers, choristers, instrumentalists, marionettists and storytellers. Level of ability ran from novice to professional, and 35 exhibits as varied as book publishing and wood carving provided access to the arts throughout the rest of the year.

Hearing a seniors' choir follow a children's choir reminded me that an affair with the arts could be not only passionate but lifelong. Without support, however, there will not be the opportunity for our children to develop artistically or to share their talent with their community.

I am pleased to commend then the many volunteers who worked so hard to make the day a success. In particular, I would like to mention Annie Milne, parade co-ordinator, and Pat Hodge, event co-ordinator. I also wish to applaud the businesses which advertised Saturday's event by displaying in their windows work by local artists. This is a reminder that the arts are not only to delight the senses but also to generate wealth in the community.

Finally, the city of Kingston helped pay for the festival in acknowledgement of the essential role the arts play in the life of the community. This co-operation among groups in the Kingston area provides the basis for a flourishing cultural life. It is a model other communities might wish to follow.

TORONTO BLUE JAYS

Ms Poole: It gives me great pleasure to rise in this House today to pay tribute. From all corners of this province, from Windsor to Ottawa, from Trenton to St Catharines, from Sudbury to Mississauga, from Timmins to Metropolitan Toronto, even from Listowel to Wingham, from every region of this province, last night we proved that we are the best baseball fans in North America. For the first time in major league history a team attracted four million fans in one season, and that team, as we all know, is our very own Toronto Blue Jays.

Last night there was more good news. In fact, I think it is great news. The Blue Jays did not let us down. In a thrill-packed game, the Blue Jays clinched their third American League East championship in the past six years.

Some days there just does not seem to be much good news going around. People are pessimistic and people are cynical, and to many people of this province there has been precious little good news since September 6, 1990. But millions of people across Ontario and across Canada are just thrilled to celebrate the victories of our talented ball club.

I know I join with all members of this House in wishing our Blue Jays the very best for the coming World Series that we know is in the offing. Go, Toronto Blue Jays.

HOSPITAL FINANCING

Mr J. Wilson: In light of the Treasurer's statement yesterday announcing spending reductions for each ministry and the trimming of $100 million from ministry operating budgets, concerns are being raised regarding certain capital projects for hospitals in Ontario. The Treasurer's announcement yesterday will undoubtedly jeopardize consultants' reports and redevelopment studies for several of Ontario's hospitals.

Hospitals such as the Collingwood General and Marine Hospital, Orillia Soldiers' Memorial Hospital, Barrie's Royal Victoria Hospital, Mattawa General Hospital and Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital, to name just a few, deserve some direction from this government so that they can plan accordingly.

In the wake of the confusion that has resulted from the Treasurer's statement yesterday, I urge this government to provide a prescription that enables hospitals to plan for the future. The minister must move immediately to inform Ontario hospitals exactly what capital projects this government intends to cancel and what projects she will commit to. It is difficult enough for hospital boards to budget and plan for the future. I fear the Treasurer's announcement of yesterday, left as it is, will serve to cripple this process.

I am calling on this government to clear up the confusion and on the Minister of Health to start providing desperately needed planning direction for health care facilities and hospital boards.

LANDLORD-TENANT CO-OPERATION

Mr Mammoliti: In light of the heated debates on rent control legislation, I would like to share with every member of this Legislature a series of events that have recently taken place in my riding of Yorkview. What I am about to tell the members opposite and my colleagues will prove that tenants and landlords can work together.

The tenants living at 2850 Jane Street and their landlord, Mr Barry Klady, have successfully come together to work out their differences concerning the landlord's proposal to construct three new apartments in the building.

With the consent of the landlord and the tenants' association, represented by Isabelle Karakatanis, it was my honour to act as mediator for the two parties. I am pleased to say that both groups approached the discussions in a professional and sincere manner and produced an agreement that both can be proud of.

I am happy to report that an agreement was reached on the construction of a recreation centre for the building as well, to coincide with the addition of the new apartments. When both sides finally came to the table, further agreements were made as well. The lobby will also be expanded and three new washers and dryers will be installed.

It is a rare thing indeed when tenants and landlords can work together effectively to benefit both parties. I would like to congratulate Mr Klady and the members of the tenants' association for their efforts and hope that this particular case will serve as an example to all tenants and their landlords.

SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY

Port Weller Dry Docks has produced a variety of ships on time, within budget and to the satisfaction of its customers. Yet Lavalin, which has been the beneficiary of a government bailout and which was seized less than two months ago by a consortium of banks and resold to Montreal-based SNC Group Inc, has been given the $500-million handshake by the Canadian government. Some 1,000 jobs will be denied to the employees of Port Weller Dry Docks and a much-needed shot in the arm will be denied to the Niagara region and the Ontario economy.

ONTARIO HYDRO LEGISLATION

Mr Jordan: I would like to ask the Minister of Energy who he is now trying to mislead. The amendments to Bill 118, as presented yesterday, are a joke.

The Speaker: The member is not suggesting that someone is misleading the House or misleading anyone, I trust. Would the member rephrase his statement.

Mr Jordan: I retract that statement.

The Speaker: If the member would rephrase his statement, it would be appreciated. Could we restart the clock? Perhaps the member could restart his statement.

Mr Jordan: The amendments to Bill 118, as presented yesterday, are a joke. From the beginning, this legislation has been flawed and unnecessary. This week the government bungled the delivery of new amendments by having a backbencher, instead of the minister, attempt to deliver the joke.

I can see the minister being embarrassed to deliver it, because the amendments vaguely address only subsection 9a(1) by the addition of the following: "On matters relating to the corporation's exercise of its powers and duties under this act."

Ontario has no guarantee in the future of a reliable source of power at cost. Policy directives still give the minister too much power. Fuel switching at Ontario Hydro customers' expense is ludicrous and not an acceptable business practice.

The government will not save 700 megawatts of energy. It will transfer it into 2,389,100,000 BTUs of fossil fuels at the expense of the ratepayer. The government will do this in a dictatorial fashion, without the approval of the elected municipal governments.

These powers are in the minister's hands, due not only to this legislation but to the government's political choice of executive control.

ROBERT MIDDAUGH

Mr Christopherson: It is my pleasure to rise in the House today to inform members of the appointment of Robert Middaugh as the new chief of the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Force. Chief Middaugh comes to Hamilton-Wentworth with an impressive array of policing and educational credentials. A 24-year veteran of policing, Mr Middaugh started his career in Peel region, moving to Halton as inspector, becoming deputy chief in 1980. Halton officials expressed to Rick Hughes of the Hamilton Spectator that Mr Middaugh was highly regarded in their community and especially respected for his analytic capabilities.

Our new chief also supports the new employment equity goals as set out in the Police Services Act, which call for more minorities and women on the force.

I would also like to commend the outstanding contribution of our outgoing police chief, Mr Colin Millar. Chief Millar joined the Hamilton police department 36 years ago and has served as our dedicated regional chief since 1978.

The Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Force is one of the largest municipal policing agencies in the province, with over 900 members. It is a force dedicated to the delivery of superior-quality policing services within our community.

In closing, I would like to join in welcoming Chief Middaugh and his wife, Judith-Ann, to our community.

TORONTO BLUE JAYS

Mr Malkowski: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I was one of the four million fans who watched the Blue Jays last night. I was there at the game and I would like all of the members in the House and all of Toronto to show our appreciation by not only clapping but waving our hands in appreciation of what they did last night.

The Speaker: While the member for York East does not have a point of order, the Speaker can find nothing out of order with the Blue Jays winning.

VISITORS

The Speaker: I would invite all members of the House to welcome to our midst today, seated in the Speaker's gallery, a delegation of parliamentarians from the Federal Republic of Germany, headed by Mrs Eva Ruehmkorf and accompanied by Mr Walter Leuchs, the acting consul general. Please join me in welcoming our visitors.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

WASTE REDUCTION

Hon F. Wilson: I am proud to rise today to announce new measures that demonstrate this government's continued leadership in greening initiatives. Although this government has already cut by 28% waste produced in government buildings with a full recycling program, we are the first to recognize there is more that can be done, more that must be done. This is why the Ontario government has a green workplace program that promotes the 3Rs at work.

Today, in the spirit of Waste Reduction Week, this government takes another bold step forward by announcing new green workplace program initiatives. I want to remind the House that these initiatives not only improve our environment, they also reduce the cost of government and help to foster new, competitive green industries in Ontario. Waste reduction is a vitally important issue in Ontario. We produce enough waste to fill the SkyDome to the roof every three weeks. Our wasteful habits are not limited to home. The average office worker in Ontario creates one kilogram of waste each day. About 72% of that waste can be recycled, or not used at all.

This government, together with 70,000 provincial employees, is working to reduce, reuse and recycle in government buildings and all across the province. Under the green workplace program, we have expanded our environmental protection initiatives. We are continuing with the 3Rs and are now working on better purchasing practices, on energy and water conservation and on air quality and hazardous material management.

Today we are committing $3.2 million to new reduction initiatives. The money will be spent on projects that will deliver real environmental benefits over the next six months. Some of these projects involve high-tech solutions to reducing paper. Paper amounts to 80% of our office waste. We will be composting at psychiatric hospitals and corrections facilities, where up to 70% of the waste comes from kitchens. We will reduce our use of water, both outside on our lawns and inside by retrofitting washrooms.

We will install new equipment to improve energy efficiency in government buildings and we will test new equipment to improve air quality. Also, we will be funding training for staff in handling substances harmful to the environment.

These greening projects will contribute to the economic revival and renewal in this province as well. Our program has the potential to create new jobs and stimulate economic development by creating markets for Ontario's new green industries.

In a global marketplace that is more and more environmentally conscious, sunrise industries developing in this province will increase their export opportunities. This in turn creates jobs here in Ontario. By reducing what we use and what we waste, we are achieving real cost savings in the way we work and in the way we operate our buildings. This government is not content to sit back and watch. We are ready to move further and faster, and government employees tell us they are ready to move forward with us. Waste reduction and long-term savings are our goal. Through our broad efforts and the participation of our employees, we can make government offices a model for resource conservation.

POLITICAL ACTIVITY BY POLICE OFFICERS

Hon Mr Pilkey: I am pleased to announce that a new regulation on permissible political activities for municipal police officers has been passed under the Police Services Act. This regulation strikes a balance between the rights of all Ontarians to receive a high degree of impartial and politically neutral policing services and the rights of individual police officers as members of their communities. This regulation supports the concept of community policing which recognizes that police today are a part of, not apart from, their communities.

This regulation permits municipal police officers to engage in most political activity while off duty and not in uniform. Officers may express views as individuals as long as they do not associate their position as a police officer with the issue or represent their views as those of their police service.

I wish to remind members that the old Police Act did not address the issue of political activity for municipal police officers. Consequently, this resulted in widely varying local practices. This new regulation will clarify and guarantee the political rights of municipal police officers while ensuring province-wide consistency and fairness. This regulation has been developed in consultation with both public and police.

I am most pleased to inform this House that the regulation has the full support of Ontario's police leadership, which is represented today in the visitors' gallery. I wish to recognize Chief Rick Zanibbi of the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, Ruth Lovell of the Ontario Association of Police Services Boards, and Ted Johnson, Bob Morrison and Neal Jessop of the Police Association of Ontario.

With respect to the Ontario Provincial Police, my ministry will continue to work closely with the Human Resources Secretariat, which is examining political activity rights for crown employees. I am confident that the regulation which I am announcing today will strike a balance that ensures that Ontarians will receive impartial and politically neutral policing services while providing individual police officers with rights as members of their communities.

RESPONSES

WASTE REDUCTION

Mr Grandmaître: I would like to comment on the minister's green workplace program. I think it is very commendable that finally the government is realizing that much more is to be done if we are to accomplish what was initially started with the 3Rs program. I would have preferred the Minister of Government Services to stand in his place today and talk about the relocation program that was started with the Liberal government.

What would the minister have to say to the mayor of Haileybury in stalling the relocation program to his municipality, and also the mayor of Peterborough for again stalling on the relocation program? This is what we would like the Minister of Government Services to address in this House one of these fine days.

I said that the green workplace program is commendable, but I find it strange that the minister would stand in his place to announce a $3.2-million program and yet the Keele Valley and Britannia sites are being left wide open to accumulate millions of tons of waste. In his statement, the minister was saying "enough waste to fill the SkyDome to the roof every three weeks." If the Keele Valley site and the Britannia site are left open until 1993-94, the minister should just imagine that 80 SkyDomes will be filled.

Again, it is not much of a program, but not too much is expected from that government.

POLITICAL ACTIVITY BY POLICE OFFICERS

Mr Curling: Members may recall the Police Services Act that the Liberal government put in place. The regulation that the minister announced today came out of that Police Services Act which was passed by our government. We welcome the minister's announcement of the increased but really limited role of the police officers. From our very preliminary view, the regulations appear to be sound regulations based on work done by the previous government.

One concern we do have is that while the consultation was to have involved both the police and the community, the public, there is nothing in the Solicitor General's statement, if you examine it, that tells us of the public's participation in the process. Before we pass any final document, we would like to review the regulation. He should remember that in his days that was consistently the view he took. We want to view it entirely. More important, we would like to be assured of the community's support of the regulation.

I am a little disappointed, though, that the Solicitor General has not been able to demonstrate community support today. I am very encouraged, of course, that the police have taken this great interest in this, and I think they should. We were unable, of course, to bring any of the community support that he speaks of so highly.

I am also encouraged -- I think we must give credit where it is due -- by the new consultation approach of this Solicitor General. I presume that when the oath to the Queen was banned without consultation this government was really taught a good lesson, that consultation works. I want the government to continue to do that. I am sure the community will be watching very carefully. I think we have some wonderful police officers in our community and of course they should participate in the political process, but we would like to take a very close look at this regulation before it is instituted.

Mr Carr: It was interesting to note that in a day and age when we are now faced with an increase in crime of 37%, this Solicitor General is worrying about how to ensure that the political activities of the police force do not become a big problem.

In my riding we had 4,000 people out in the Take Back the Night walk because of the concerns about crime in the street. We had two murders in our community during that period. It has become the number one problem in my area. The number one problem for the people in Halton is safety on the streets. What does the Solicitor General do? He comes in and he is worried about people being able to organize.

One of the things we on this side are going to be grateful for, I tell the minister right now, is that when they do begin to organize and get politically active, the first thing they are going to do is try to put this government out of office next time around.

We have finally gotten through to this government. The members opposite talked about consulting. It is interesting to see they are finally listening to some of the fine folks who are here today, because when it came to the other regulation, when it came to the change in the oath to the Queen, they listened to no one. It happened in the dead of night with no consulting, and the people of this province are mad about that too. The next time around, the people who are concerned about things like the oath to the Queen and crime in this province are going to be the ones who are going to put this government out in the street.

WASTE REDUCTION

Mr Turnbull: To the Minister of Government Services I would say first off, good effort, but I find it rather ironic that the most significant environmental initiative this government has made in the last year has come from the Ministry of Government Services. Unfortunately I do not think it is going to do anything to solve the mess that the Ministry of the Environment has created in the greater Toronto area. I would also say congratulations on an attempt to cut waste. I certainly hope it has more success than the Treasurer had in his statement yesterday.

Normally I associate this government with the 3Rs, and the 3Rs, as far as the members opposite are concerned, are review, recant and retreat. Hopefully it will do something to reduce the pile of garbage which has no place to go in the greater Toronto area. I am sure this will be the first of many efforts this government will attempt to regain its slipping credibility. The government may be a cleaner place, but what about making the government a more efficient place?

ATTENDANCE OF PREMIER

Mr Miclash: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I am actually quite disappointed that again we have a government here without the Premier. As we know, question period is very important to people on this side of the House. It is very important for us to ask the Premier what he is doing in terms of some of the policies he has and to get some of the honourable members' ideas across to the people of Ontario. There is a lot of dissatisfaction out there and I think the Premier should be here to answer some of our questions regarding some of that from my constituents.

Hon Mr Cooke: Mr Speaker, because this has been raised a couple of days in a row, I would like to point out to the House that on September 23, when the House resumed, the Premier was here. The next day he attended the funeral of a fallen OPP officer. On September 25, he spoke at a community college association. On September 26, he was here. Earlier this week he was in Milwaukee. He was also at the opening of the Bank of Montreal training centre, and today he is speaking to the international woodworkers. Today is the 81st question period for this government and the Premier has attended 66 of those question periods, or 80%.

The Leader of the Opposition is not here.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Will members come to order, please? I am asking all members of the House to come to order, please.

The member for Kenora, and indeed other members who have raised a similar point of order, will know that there is nothing in the standing orders which will be of assistance to the Speaker in this situation. Of course the Speaker would very much like to see every member of the House in full attendance at all times, but there is nothing in the standing orders that speaks of attendance. I would ask that we continue with our business in a calm and reasoned way.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr Conway: I have a question for the Treasurer and it concerns his most controversial, much-troubled budget to which he administered some rather interesting plastic surgery in this Legislature yesterday afternoon. Would the Treasurer not agree that the people of Ontario understand the very dire straits in which this budget now finds itself? They understand that the expenditures are above what was projected and in fact many feel the expenditures are running out of control. Perhaps as important, evidence builds that revenues are not spot on, as the Treasurer would like us to believe.

Given the not inconsiderable prelude to yesterday's midcourse correction, is the Treasurer not embarrassed that all he was able to do for the taxpayers of Ontario yesterday was to defer much and decide very little to deal with the budgetary haemorrhage in fiscal year 1991-92?

Hon Mr Laughren: The member opposite is being somewhat extravagant in his description of the state of the budget, but on the other hand, I have always enjoyed his extravagances.

I should remind members that what we did yesterday was announce a 1% correction or adjustment in our expenditures for this year. That is all; nothing more. Expenditure pressures have been building this year for reasons I explained in some detail in my statement yesterday. All we are saying is that in order to keep to our target on our expenditures, we simply must make some midyear adjustments. I think any large organization that was responsible would do the same thing. We have simply said that we are going to make this correction in order that we stick to our guns on controlling our expenditures. I think the people of this province expect no less and we are determined to do that.

Mr Conway: There is a Ronald Reagan-like calmness in the Treasurer's comments just delivered, and against that backdrop, I want to look specifically at what the Treasurer did yesterday on the expenditure account.

What the Treasurer did not do on the expenditure account is that he made absolutely no effort to restrain or constrain in this fiscal year some of the most protected, privileged and well-paid people in this province, namely, the doctors, the teachers, the union bosses and the public servants, good people all.

What the Treasurer did do yesterday, as he cowered at the prospect of that common front with which he made a happy alliance in the election campaign of 1990, is that in the fiscal year 1991-92 he cut back $13 million from the budget of the Ministry of Colleges and Universities. While he did not have the guts to deal with the doctors, the teachers and the public servants, he thought not a second about asking the college and university students to carry a disproportionate share of the restraint burden in the fiscal year 1991-92. As a social democrat, is he not embarrassed to stand in this House and defend that kind of iniquitous tax policy?

Hon Mr Laughren: The member opposite has moved from extravagance to cruelty in his charges to me. I should say to the member opposite that he is not being fair either. On all counts, he is not being fair. This government has for the first time put a containment on the overall costs of the health care system. That has never been done before in the history of this province. We did it.

Second, we have sent a very strong signal out there that we are going to manage our expenditures very carefully, including our negotiations with the public sector, but that will be done through the collective bargaining process, which we respect unlike some other jurisdictions I could name in this country.

Finally, it is not accurate to state that we have simply moved the problem from this year to next year. There were two issues on which we did indeed move, not the problem but a pressure, from this year to next year because there is a retroactivity to them. One is the pay equity settlement of $50 million. We are going to have to pay that in the next fiscal year, absolutely. That was done because the amendments to the legislation will not be through. Second, the wage protection fund will not all be paid this year as originally we thought it would be. That will be paid next year.

Those two numbers will be moved into the next fiscal year. The other numbers are effective savings for this year and for next year.

Mr Conway: The spin doctors would be happy with the headlines today which indicate that Ontario has lopped $600 million off its budget. When I look at what the Treasurer said and did yesterday for the fiscal year 1991-92, I see that $460 million of that $600 million was in fact deferred to next year. Would the Treasurer not agree that having regard to the expenditure part of his growing budgetary problem and haemorrhage, all he did yesterday on behalf of the beleaguered taxpayers of Ontario was to pay this year's MasterCard with next year's Visa?

Hon Mr Laughren: The member has returned to extravagant language in his final supplementary. I would simply say that is not accurate. The savings we are effecting, for example in the expenditures of the various ministries, will reduce the base for next year and in the next 18 months will effect a saving of about $300 million. That is real money and it is real savings. That is not simply deferring expenditure to next year. That is simply not the case. The member is not depicting it as it really is. Those are permanent savings in the expenditure base of this government.

We are determined that we are going to carry through on those expenditure savings, because I believe that is expected of us and we are determined to do it.

TAX REVENUES

Mr Conway: I have a second question for the provincial Treasurer. I would like to leave the expenditure haemorrhage for a moment and now deal with the revenue difficulties. I must say, listening to the Treasurer respond yesterday to my colleague the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, I am increasingly persuaded that my honourable friend the member for Nickel Belt knows more about the revenue difficulty than he is yet prepared to announce to this House. Be that as it may, we must deal with what we have before us. He says that in the here and now his revenues are spot on.

The Treasurer's budget plan for the fiscal year 1991-92 anticipates a decline in retail sales tax revenues of approximately 2.5% over the previous year. Statistics Canada has indicated that in the first six months of this calendar year retail sales in Ontario were off by fully 8%. Can the Treasurer indicate whether or not his officials at Treasury have briefed him that the retail sales tax numbers, even though they were discounted by 2.5%, may in fact be seriously overstated as we speak?

Hon Mr Laughren: No. At this point in time, and that is as far as we can go, the numbers in