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

October 10, 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

COUNTY OF SIMCOE ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LE COMTE DE SIMCOE

Mr J. Wilson moved second reading of Bill 132,

An Act respecting the Amalgamation of Municipalities in the County of Simcoe.

M. J. Wilson propose la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 132, Loi concernant la fusion des municipalites du comte de Simcoe.

Mr J. Wilson: The thrust of my private member's bill is quite simple. It deals with the fundamental principle of a democratic society, that is, the right of the majority to determine their fate. Amalgamating municipalities against their will only serves to distance the public from the institutions that govern them and further fuels the widely held conviction that government is not listening to them.

This morning I want to explain to the members of the Legislature why I feel so strongly that the proposal to restructure Simcoe county is and has been seriously flawed from the outset and that the wishes of the majority of the ratepayers in the county have been ignored. Today we have the opportunity to correct the mistakes of the past, to restore faith in our democratic system and institutions and to truly respond in a meaningful and tangible way to the wishes of the people.

While the previous Liberal government allowed itself to be imprisoned by the bureaucracy in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, we as legislators now have the right to demonstrate that we take our responsibilities seriously and that we are here to stick up for and fight on behalf of our constituents.

Between 1987 and 1990, the Liberal government authored three major restructuring reports which set out to strengthen county government in Ontario. However, at no point was a consensus achieved from the people whereby the people of Ontario agreed to move forward with this restructuring policy.

The last of these three reports was entitled Toward an Ideal County: Principles and Programs for a Strong County Government System in Ontario. This document laid out the terms of reference and the process for the county restructuring studies which are under way.

Here we come to one of the fatal flaws in this extremely flawed restructuring process. The previous Liberal government was clearly aware of the public's dislike of both regional government and its strengthened county government that jeopardized local autonomy. The Liberals got around this by downplaying the notion of regional government and stacking the study committees to produce a desired, predetermined result.

Why did Simcoe county embark upon a restructuring process in 1989 that would eventually culminate in its final report of July 15, 1991? Initially, Simcoe county councillors had good reason to believe that to do nothing would invite the provincial Liberal government to swoop down and remake the county in the image it desired. Faced with this prospect, and considering the findings of these Liberal reports, Simcoe county had no choice but to at least attempt to have input into what it foresaw occurring.

The previous government paid dearly at the polls in the last election for its arrogance. However, the trap had been set. Simcoe county was a year into its study and the new NDP government, driven by that very same bureaucracy, was encouraging local studies to continue until completion. Simcoe county, which began its restructuring study so that change would not be imposed, now became imprisoned by its own initiative. Every time it wavered, it was encouraged to continue by an NDP government that was eager to see this "locally driven" study completed.

Eric Beecroft is a political scientist at the University of Windsor. In his review of restructuring in Oxford county, he postulates that local support and initiative are crucial ingredients to the eventual acceptance of restructuring by the people. I do not doubt for a second the quality of Mr Beecroft's assertion that local support is key if restructuring is to prove successful. The difficulty I have is applying the notion of "locally driven" to the Simcoe county example.

I have received a flood of telephone calls and letters from constituents who are anything but supportive of this restructuring process in Simcoe county. My constituent Mr John Porter writes: "It is hard for me to envision any significant benefit which the residents of Nottawasaga township will receive from this restructuring. On the other hand, it is very easy to conclude that tax increases for Nottawasaga residents are highly probable."

Mr William Hall writes: "I oppose the proposals to restructure Simcoe county. I have concerns because of my experience living in Cambridge as a victim of regional government that (1) taxes will rise inappropriately for services provided, (2) there will be a loss of identity, and (3) representation will suffer."

Mr MacFarlane of Glen Huron says: "Nottawasaga should remain a rural community with a rural identity and a rural government. Amalgamations such as that proposed are highly suspect. They are driven by interests other than those of the rural community."

The latter part of Mr MacFarlane's comments, that restructuring studies are driven by interests other than those of the rural community, sheds significant light on another fatal flaw of the restructuring process. The study process has the potential to be controlled by the interests of a few.

There is good reason to believe a lobby developed within Simcoe county council to support the amalgamations and boundary changes. The towns of Midland, Collingwood and Stayner wanted these changes in order to grab more land and assessment and a larger tax base in order to pay their sizeable debts. The four townships bordering Barrie supported restructuring in order to hold off the city's expansion until the agreed-upon date of 2012. The south Simcoe municipalities supported the changes because they had already been subject to forced amalgamation by the previous Liberal government, effective the beginning of 1991.

Further reinforcing my point is the makeup of the Simcoe county study committee. Five of the nine representatives came from the newly amalgamated towns, so I ask, how could these representatives be truly objective in determining whether the remainder of Simcoe county should undergo a similar amalgamation? Two other committee members were from towns looking for additional land and assessment, while another was from a township bordering Barrie. Eight of nine committee members were representing interests that may be described as not in the best interests of the county as a whole.

On top of this, the cities of Barrie and Orillia were asked to leave the study committee, even though they represent an integral part of Simcoe county. This alone compromises the value of the final report drafted by the Simcoe county study committee.

I want to quote from Marc Lalonde, a Liberal, who in 1965 said, "The dispute between levels of government in Canada is essentially connected with the power politics of the various groups of people involved and has very little to do with the welfare of the individual citizens of the country."

These words have added significance in the post-Meech Lake era that we are now in. There are striking similarities between Simcoe county's restructuring study process and the Meech Lake constitutional accord. Both made decisions behind closed doors. Both arrived at decisions tailored to certain interests and forsook the general welfare of the nation, and both forgot about the people.

Whereas the drafters of Meech ignored public input, the authors of the Simcoe county restructuring report consulted the public but omitted their concerns, I believe, when drafting the final report. At every public meeting, residents of Simcoe county overwhelmingly expressed their disapproval for the whole restructuring idea. Regrettably, this disapproval was overlooked when county councillors voted on the final report.

I also must question the role of the NDP government since coming to office. The Minister of Municipal Affairs has played a shrewd game of poker with these studies. He has encouraged their completion, yet he has not responded directly to any of the studies.

I would certainly expect support for my bill from my NDP friend the member for Simcoe Centre, who in a memorable debate during last year's election campaign said: "When I am elected member for Simcoe Centre, I would see the proposed restructuring of Simcoe county scrapped. We don't need to become a northern Mississauga." This assertion was also supported by the Premier, who said during the election that the province should tread carefully with restructuring.

I yield the floor to other members. A little later my colleague the member for Simcoe East will further explain some of our concerns regarding the restructuring process and the study process in Simcoe county.

Mr Drainville: I am glad to have this opportunity to speak briefly to the views set forward by the honourable member for Simcoe West.

I come from a riding, Victoria-Haliburton, where such a study has been ongoing, a study of Victoria county. We encountered a number of problems as well in terms of that study, and there have been questions as to the viability of restructuring. When it came down to the vote in the county council, they voted basically to do away with many of the recommendations that were put in the report. I want to put that in the background as I give my remarks.

There is no question that this whole issue of restructuring is an important one. In fact, quite apart from the comment from the honourable member indicating that the minister has been playing a game of poker -- it is not a game of poker at all; it is that in all the realms of possibilities in terms of policies that we have to address ourselves to, this is a very contentious, a very controversial and a very difficult one. It is not so facile as just to say we are going to respond this way or we are going to respond that way as soon as we take power.

Rather we have been looking at and trying to see the process that has gone on before, with some questions about that process, and acknowledging that we have to make some changes and move in some different direction, which we would like to do.

I want to say to the honourable member that there is a very clear feeling among those of us who are in government that we need to develop a comprehensive approach to reform while at the same time recognizing the integrity and the diversity and the differences in each of the counties. That has to be stated as we look at our policies and how they will develop in the next while. The minister will shortly be addressing this issue in a very public way. I want to say, though, we have to deal with the views that have been put forward in this House and we have to deal specifically with Bill 132.

Regarding the situation in Simcoe, it has to be stated for the public record that this whole process set up by the Liberal government before was to attempt to see a renewal of the county structure of government in Ontario. There is no question there are flaws. There are flaws in everything we do in government and there were flaws in that piece of legislation as well. But there is no question in terms of the plan put forward that there were some very real things that government was trying to address that had to be addressed by the county government and the local municipalities.

There is no question at all either that in terms of Simcoe county, as we see in the final vote of the Simcoe county council, which was 42 to 26, there was a very substantial vote in favour of the report being put forward to the county.

The other thing is that the study was to be completed and was completed by June 1991 and it received comments from every part of the public until the end of October. I realize there are charges in Simcoe county that there was not enough consultation. We always face that in this particular job. People always say after a decision has been made that there has not been enough consultation, particularly if they differ with the perspective put forward or the change being moved.

In terms of our response at this point, we need to say that these are the important background points to understand about the Simcoe county restructuring; all studies that have been done across the province in whatever county have been locally initiated, that is, people who are involved in the day-to-day operation of those municipalities were involved in those studies. They had an opportunity to be part of that committee and to discuss these things and to put their views forth within the county.

Also, we have to say that all municipalities repeatedly had opportunities to make sure the committee had its particular perspectives taken into account. In terms of any final recommendations that were oriented towards boundary changes, they were proposed directly by the individual municipalities involved.

The last and most important thing is to understand that to accept the bill as put forward by the honourable member today would in a sense take the government prerogative to deal with this issue across the province and put it into some jeopardy by saying, "Oh, no, not Simcoe county." In fact the minister has the obligation to respond to this and ensure that the good of the whole of the province is also taken into account. That is what his role is as Minister of Municipal Affairs.

In conclusion, I would like to say to the honourable member that I agree there are some questions about the way things were done. Certainly I have questions about the way they were done in Victoria county. To indicate that somehow this bill is going to correct that for Simcoe county I do not believe, nor do I believe it would be helpful in terms of the work of the Minister of Municipal Affairs in trying to establish a policy for the province. So I have to say that I cannot accept this bill as put forward and I will be voting against it.

Mr Mahoney: I intend to speak in support of the bill and wonder what the honourable member has against a northern Mississauga. I was somewhat dismayed to hear that reaction, but I will get over it and I will continue to support the honourable member because I think he put forward an issue that is very fundamental.

I am somewhat disappointed to hear the honourable member for Victoria-Haliburton say he cannot support the bill, because the fundamental aspect of this bill, particularly in private members' public business, is that I firmly believe the best government is the government that is closest to the people. They are the people who can understand what is best for their particular community.

What the honourable gentleman opposite has said is that if we were to support this bill -- I believe this is close to the exact quote -- it would take away the government's prerogative to make a decision with regard to Simcoe county. Since when should any government have the prerogative, the ability to force something on the citizens of a local community that they do not want? I just find that repugnant and believe there must be a process put in place that allows for the people in the county of Simcoe to make a decision through their elected representatives as to what is particularly best for the structure of their community.

I would like to touch for a moment on the task force set up by the former Minister of Municipal Affairs, John Eakins. I was asked to serve on that task force because, as some members would know, I spent the better part of 10 years at the municipal and regional level as a councillor in Mississauga and a councillor in the region of Peel and I have some background and understanding of the difficulties and concerns facing local government. I enjoyed very much the opportunity to travel around the province to the various communities.

I should also tell members that I spent three years on the board of directors of AMO, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and, as a result, had an opportunity to talk to a lot of folks not only from counties like the Simcoe community but from all across the province about what affects them and what concerns they have. It is unfortunate that the member would see that task force as a negative deed by the former government, because my experience was quite the opposite.

I came to the conclusion that the people in the counties did not want regional government or restructuring or anything of that nature forced on them without their having a clear-cut opportunity to discuss it, debate it and take it to the people.

The message was driven home loud and clear to me in all the counties I visited across the province as part of that task force. Contrary to what the honourable gentleman has said about the performance of the former government, I think if we did one thing really well, we listened to the people at the county level. We went out on a task force and we talked to them. We had meetings with them, spent time in their communities, toured their communities, had lunch with the reeves and the councillors, met with the local business community, talked to various interest groups in those different communities and tried to get a focus, a handle, an understanding on what it is they wanted.

If there was one thing that came across loud and clear in those deliberations, it was: "Let us control our own destiny. We realize that we are creatures of the province. We realize that we need legislation to do whatever it is we want to do, but we'd like as much of that legislation as possible to be permissive legislation. Give us the authority with which to make our own decisions and run our own lives."

Frankly, that is what I see Bill 132 doing. It simply says to the government: "Look, Simcoe county is particularly concerned if you're going to come in and take the map and a crayon and start drawing lines. You're going to create little feuds, neighbour against neighbour, family against family, an upheaval in the community that is totally unnecessary."

They say they do not want to become a Mississauga north or a north Mississauga. I remember well in 1974 when we amalgamated the communities of Port Credit, Streetsville, Cooksville and all of these wonderful communities within the city of Mississauga. We formed a city and we formed the region of Peel at the same time, and I remember well that there was a fair amount of acrimony over doing it.

But I also remember, with all due respect to the government of the day, that it allowed for a public process to take place in the community, for debate and dissension to take place in the community and for the local representatives to be involved. The current mayor, Hazel McCallion, was very actively involved at that time as the reeve of Streetsville and, as members can appreciate, would have been somewhat outspoken against the formation of regional government. But in a constructive way, at least the opportunity was there for the community to set its course and set its destiny.

Notwithstanding the fact that there were a lot people opposed to regional government, I will admit that at least the opportunity was there for debate. They did not go quite as far, however, as this member would have this government go in respect of local autonomy and local decisions. What this bill says is that restructuring should not be allowed "unless the council of the affected municipality, by resolution, consents to the amalgamation."

Were that kind of philosophy to have been in place, were this member to have been a member of this Legislature at that time and be in support of a similar bill for Peel, today we would not have the region of Peel, in my humble opinion. However, the important thing is that the dialogue at least took place. The concern the counties have expressed is that bigger is not necessarily better. Frankly, as a resident of 22 years in the city of Mississauga and a member of that council, I can tell the members that is true.

The one thing we have striven to do in our community that would support the concept put forward by the honourable member is to preserve our neighbourhoods and our communities. In my own city, even though it is part of a massive region of 500,000-plus people, even though we have what would appear to be certain duplications, we have some excellent services such as the Peel Regional Police Force, one of the finest in Canada. We have an ability to deliver social services on a regional basis with one of the finest departments.

We have a non-profit housing company that is the model of non-profit housing. I know the Conservatives do not like non-profit housing but, as the past president of that company, I happen to be very much in support of it. It is one of the finest housing corporations in all of Canada. Indeed, it is used and held up as the model for establishing non-profit housing programs and projects throughout this country. We have some very fine, first-class services.

At the same time, there are people who would say there is duplication. As we are part of that as a city, I think what makes it work for us is that we have the ability to maintain our grass roots. We feel we have a sense in our community of actually having something to say. Frankly, if this government is not prepared to support what really is a very innocuous, albeit a very good resolution -- I say it is innocuous because it simply says "Don't do this unless the people agree" -- if the New Democratic Party does not agree with that principle, I for one would be quite astounded.

I do not mean to be partisan on this issue. For years I have heard candidates from that party talk in terms of supporting the grass roots, of listening to the people, of providing a forum, an opportunity for people to have their say. If this government were now to throw this resolution out and defeat it, I could only interpret that, and I would respectfully submit the people of Ontario could only interpret that, as meaning those principles have been thrown out with it, those principles that the rank and file of the New Democratic Party have held close to their heart for years; at least we have been led to believe it is close to the heart of that particular institution.

I think it is a very critical vote for the members of that party. Considering that this is private members' public business, there would presumably not be a whip on. The members presumably would have the ability to stand up and vote in whatever way their conscience suggests is right and fair. If I am wrong on that I would be quite concerned, because over the years we in our party have had debates, as I am sure the third party has, about how exactly Thursday morning's private members' hour should function.

It is called private members' hour for a reason. It allows the member for Durham East to make a decision based on what he understands he would want in his community. It allows the member for Oxford to make a decision based on what the folks in Oxford really feel, not based on what the Minister of Municipal Affairs tells them to do, not based on what the Premier tells them to do and not based on some platform that has been cooked up in the caucus room of the New Democratic Party.

Notwithstanding that the honourable member for Victoria-Haliburton has spoken against this, I sincerely hope a number of them on that side of the House, the member for Sault Ste Marie and others, understand the importance of local representation and the significance of giving people the opportunity to make a choice at their local level. I hope a number of them recognize, as I said in my opening remarks, that the best government is the government closest to the people.

The best way to ensure that government functions is not to hamstring it, not to dictate from some great 12th floor in the Whitney Block that this is how it will do things, not to send policy from Bay Street and Bloor Street to wonderful communities like Simcoe county, but to allow the local representatives an opportunity to express the will of the people.

There was a suggestion that the council voted in some way that was unacceptable. I very strongly believe it is the responsibility of the duly elected municipal politicians to listen to the concerns of their communities, to weigh the pros and cons, to look at the benefit and deficit sides of the issue and then to make a decision based on what they feel is in the best interests of their communities. If that council decides to vote in a certain way on a certain issue, who are we to tell it how it should do it? That is exactly the kind of Big Brother image we have to get away from.

When I was on council we used to refer to the senior level of government in Ottawa or at Queen's Park. We should seriously consider looking at a reversal of that if we truly believe that the democratic process is important and that it is important to give people their say. The senior level of government should be considered that government which is closest to the people.

The restructuring of this county may indeed turn out to be the right thing to do. Frankly, being from the Mississauga community, I am not prepared to make a judgement on that. As the critic for Municipal Affairs, however, and as someone who I like to think has a background in municipal affairs, I am not prepared to come down with some great judgement from Queen's Park and tell these folks what to do. When the honourable member speaks, he should recognize that it may be in the best interest of Simcoe county to form some type of restructuring.

As I said before, notwithstanding the negatives, there are services provided on a regional basis in Peel. We provide the water and sewer treatment services. We cut a deal with the province to take that over. The negative side of that is that our water and sewer bill used to be in the taxes. They took it out of the taxes. The taxes went down for about 30 seconds. Then they put it on the water bill. The water bill went up and the taxes went back up. That is something that everybody at every level of government, if responsible for that, has to answer for.

It is not black and white, I suggest, and that is why Bill 132 is such a fair, balanced, well-thought-out and simple bill that says, in very simple, direct language: "Leave the power with the people. Don't force it on them unless the council of the affected municipality consents by resolution to the amalgamation." I will be supporting the honourable member in his efforts.

Mr McLean: I am pleased to rise today in support of Bill 132. This bill will bring a good discussion on county government, something we have not had in this Legislature since the previous administration brought in some changes, when the government of the day established a consulting committee in, I think, February 1988 to seek input into county government.

I believe reform was a move to decrease the number of municipalities, which the ministry officials wanted very much to do. This committee developed about 41 recommendations aimed at strengthening the system of county government. The aim of it really was to do away with small municipalities. Also, whether you were a mayor or reeve would depend on the population. I want to give a little background with regard to how this restructuring has taken place in the province.

In January 1990 the government announced that eight municipalities in south Simcoe would be amalgamated into three larger ones. That resulted in the amalgamation of Cookstown and Innisfil into one municipality, Bradford and West Gwillimbury forming a second and Alliston, Beeton, Tottenham and Tecumseth joining to create a third.

I indicated my reservations with regard to restructuring in Simcoe county when this proposal was first announced. I have been opposed to regional government -- we have seen what has happened over the past many years -- and I felt this was another form of regional government. I believe the entire process involved in the restructuring of county governments in Ontario was flawed from the very beginning. The task force that gave us the Tatham report consisted of eight members of the provincial Legislature. All were from one party. My colleague George McCague, who was the member for Simcoe West at that time, raised the issue in this Legislature. He felt it should have been an all-party committee.

The same minister who imposed restructuring on south Simcoe prior to the study process was looking at the rest of the county. But at the time the process took place in south Simcoe, the ministry felt there were some pressing problems. They did not feel it could wait for the rest of the county to be looked at, so the minister of the day proceeded and went ahead. Bill 177 made the amalgamation take place in south Simcoe.

County council asked to undertake the study, with assistance from ministry staff, for the rest of the county. The committee structure was a farce, even though its membership was duly elected at county council. Public hearings were mainly held with the municipal people, yet there was some public consultation with other than the municipal people. My colleague mentioned before the structure of the committee. The study committee considering the restructuring of north Simcoe consisted of only a very few elected members from the area to be amalgamated. There were approximately three from the area. The rest were from south Simcoe, which had already been restructured.

They will say they were duly elected at county council to sit on that committee, but to me that was still a problem because of the fact that the members from the north were not the majority, or even 50%. There was an enormous amount of wheeling and dealing at county council. The new boundary lines were drawn up about two weeks to a month after the committee was set up and most of the work was done by the ministry staff. How could they have maps so soon after a committee was put in place? I remember back to the early 1970s when they had the old Toronto-centred region report.

It was circulated and I believe the ministry staff continued on with that report. That is where they got their boundary lines drawn.

In county council, we have seen one reeve dealing with another reeve with regard to the boundaries. Should Washago be in Rama or Mara or should it be in Orillia township? One reeve was making a deal with another reeve, with no public consultation with the people living in that area as to whether they felt it was a good thing for them to be living in a certain community or another, as to which municipality they wanted to live in.

There was a great concern with regard to the voting that took place in county council, all this taking place when the county council first voted down having an official plan done in the county. How can you have restructuring taking place in a county when you do not have any planning process in place, simply no planning? The views of the two largest municipalities, the city of Orillia and the city of Barrie, have to be given serious consideration when you are dealing with a county. Do members know what happened when the process was halfway through?

The county council kicked the members from Barrie and Orillia off the restructuring committee. How can you have a total restructuring of a county when you have five members kicked off the restructuring committee?

That should have been halted right there. That was where the work should have stopped. However, they were permitted to continue with these deliberations over the objections of numerous individuals and municipal governments.

Simcoe county approved the restructuring report on July 23, 1991, paving the way for a major revamping of boundaries, presentations and the delivery of services. There is an interesting point I want to make here. What happened was that the county turned over the county study to the province without Barrie and Orillia having had any input into it. In essence, the county said: "Here you are, Minister. You now complete the restructuring of Simcoe county."

Barrie has a plan. They want further amalgamation. They want more land. Orillia wants more land. They had a plan whereby they had some drawings done that they felt would fit in environmentally and land-wise in that municipality. But there were no negotiations with the townships of Oro, Vespra and Innisfil, which abut the city of Barrie. Do the councils of those municipalities feel they got a good deal by adjusting their boundaries with abutting townships without dealing with the city?

I am here to tell members that the province is now going to determine what the boundaries of those two cities are going to be, and those municipalities surrounding them are not going to have the input they thought they were going to have. I can draw lines now where I think the restructuring is going to end up around Barrie. You can go out about a lot east of Shanty Bay. You can go north to 15 or 16 Side Road. You can go across to Highway 400 and north to the Dalston cutoff. Go west again and you will take in the county buildings and the new Taj Mahal of the education centre in the county of Simcoe. These reeves and councils are not going to have any input into that.

What say do the people have who live in that area surrounding the city, what input into what is going to take place? I hope the member for Simcoe Centre will stick to his guns on the statement he made during the election.

Mr Mills: That was then, this is now.

Mr McLean: "That was then, this is now," the member for Durham East says. It is going to be interesting to hear his quotes today on that. The member for York South said: "Restructure with care. All concerns have got to be taken into consideration. Don't force it on them." The member for Simcoe Centre: "No restructuring in Simcoe county. We don't want another Mississauga."

We get all kinds of letters indicating the problem they are having with amalgamation. Bill 132 is not going to solve all the problems, but it brings us here today to have a good discussion on what is happening. The warden of the county said, "If we don't do it, the province will." Where were these words coming from? Were they coming out of the minister's office? This is why they said they had to do it. The county has had its vote and it has had its negotiations within the county. It sawed off parcels of land here and there, with no public input.

The parliamentary assistant today says he is not supporting this bill. It will take away the prerogative to place restrictions on the county of Simcoe. Does the government not want to hear from the grass roots? Does it not want them to have their say?

It is wrong when we have municipalities and members of a county drawing lines without any planning and when no consultation has taken place. Can the large urban areas stand to have a large amalgamation take place when 50% of their tax bill now goes to education? Are they going to build new fire and police stations and a new maintenance building on less than 50% of what they have left? The people in the urban areas have to have a concern about this restructuring, as well as the rural people.

If they think that because they are amalgamating their taxes are going to be less, I am here to tell members they are not going to be less. They will be more, because they are going to have to supply all of those services.

The best thing to do is to put the question on a ballot. Why did they not wait until the new councils were elected? Of the seven municipalities in south Simcoe that are being amalgamated, the representation of those people who had the vote on the proposal is going to be cut almost in half. In essence what we are saying is that people who are being amalgamated have less say than the people who are already amalgamated.

Does Midland, with its expanded boundaries, feel it is going to gain, get control of more land? The hospital would be amalgamated into Midland, and the shopping malls. But what is going to happen to poor Tiny township when it loses all its assessment? Tiny's major assessment is its lakeshore property, Oro's major assessment is Shanty Bay and the lakeshore, and Vespra's major assessment is Midhurst. What is going to happen when Barrie brings in its plan of what it feels should happen? The public will not have any say. It will be the city dealing with the county and the province, and do members know what happens when civil servants want their way? It is pretty hard to change it.

In essence this bill brings in today a major discussion with regard to county restructuring. I think the process that has gone on is not the province's fault. The process was followed, other than the fact that the county asked to be restructured; really what it asked for was to have a study done to determine whether there should be boundary changes. But within a month after the committee is struck, here we have a map showing us where the boundaries should be. I am telling you, Mr Speaker, somebody was thinking a long way ahead of how he was going to manipulate restructuring in Simcoe county, and I do not like it.

I think there is a need for some minor restructuring to take place. They should have a consultant do a planning study of the county to determine whether some areas are feasible to be within those boundary negotiations. Who is to say where the lines should be drawn, without any input, without any impact study taking place? The first thing the county turned down was doing a study. That should have been the first thing that was done before the boundary lines were drawn.

There have been hundreds and thousands of letters and calls from constituents in my riding and in Nottawasaga township, Devils Glen. Restructuring is key to Coldwater voting. We have a quote from the reeve of Coldwater, who voted in favour of restructuring. He says negotiating the best deal for the village under county restructuring is another one of his aims. What happens to our boards for the village under county restructuring? What happens to our municipal office? What happens to our other boards we have within the village? These are all questions that are being asked by the individual who voted for county restructuring to take place.

What should happen is that a five-year moratorium should be put on county restructuring in the county of Simcoe. Call it to a halt. Let the people put it on the ballot or let the people be heard. The people are not being heard in this whole process. This government here is saying it is the government of the people. For goodness' sake, they should have their minister withhold any further developments in the county of Simcoe restructuring until we have time to look at it and make sure it is right and proper. Let the people decide what should happen.

Mr Wessenger: It is a pleasure to have an opportunity to debate on matters in which I have had some interest for many years, having at one time been a former alderman in the city of Barrie, having been involved with the Simcoe-Georgian Bay task force and having a background of interest in the planning area.

I think what we should look at first is really the overall, basic principle behind the concept of restructuring our municipalities in Ontario: that in much of this province we have not had ideal development. We have had a great deal of urban sprawl, which has proved very expensive for the province. We have had environmental problems arising as a result of development on unserviced land. We have had severance policies which have been very uneven in certain parts of Simcoe county and in certain parts of the province, which have created bad development. We have environmental problems in the county of Simcoe.

Lake Simcoe is at risk environmentally at the moment because of phosphate runoff. There is a problem with respect to the amount of growth that presently can occur around Lake Simcoe because we do not have the technology to deal with that growth.

We have water problems in south Simcoe, a lack of water in the Beeton-Tottenham area and in the Bradford area. We have the problem of assessment planning, whereby commercial and industrial growth is not occurring in the best place but is occurring because it suits the economic interests of each municipality.

Second, we have attempts to have some rationality with respect to the relationship between provincial and municipal governments with the Hopcroft report, with the idea of trying to have clear responsibilities for both municipalities and the provincial government, and we have the aspect of having a rational system of financial responsibility between the provinces and the municipalities, with the clear indication that the level of jurisdiction that provides the service really ought to pay the cost. So we have all this in the background.

We have an antiquated system of municipalities in this province. A lot of them are too small to be viable; many in Simcoe county are too small to be viable. How do we deal with this problem? We have to have some way of dealing with it, we have to some new structure.

There are alternatives. One alternative is to let the province do the planning for those areas that do not have viable municipalities, but that, I think, takes away from strengthening local government. I do not prefer the option of having the province take over the increased responsibilities where you do not have the municipalities able to take on that role.

The other role that has been tried is the regional development role, where you have the transfer of a great number of services to the regional level. The difficulty with that is that it has included a great deal of tax increases and a great deal of bureaucracy and a great deal of criticism that people feel isolated.

The interesting thing about the Simcoe county study -- I am not talking about the boundary aspects, because the government has not made any decision on the specific boundaries or whether it will be implemented, etc -- which I see, which I support in principle, is the idea of creating strong lower-tier municipalities. That is the model I prefer.

First of all, it keeps taxes lower and it makes government closer to people, and that is the proposal put forward in the Simcoe county study. I am very supportive of that, and I must say, certainly talking about my riding, I have not had the calls about the restructuring. I must admit there is a problem with respect to the city of Barrie being left out, but that is being dealt with. The ministry is consulting with all the municipalities and the city of Barrie and the city of Orillia with respect to how it is going to proceed in this area.

When you look at all the alternatives, the alternative that I think is the best in principle is developing strong, viable, lower-tier municipalities in any restructuring that occurs in this province. Therefore I would ask you to reject this bill, because let me just say, having lived in Barrie when we went through an attempted amalgamation, attempted boundary changes, we will never get every municipality on side. It is completely unreal ever to expect that to happen. A provincial government has to have the power to make the ultimate decisions.

Second, this legislation makes no sense because it applies to one area only. It does not apply generally throughout the province. Therefore I would ask you to defeat this bill.

Mr Mills: It is a pleasure to rise in the House this morning. It is always a pleasure to talk to private members' bills, and it is a pleasure to see you in the chair this morning, Mr Speaker. I have not publicly given you my good wisdom of welcome, but I do so here this morning.

I can speak to Bill 132 that has been introduced by the honourable member for Simcoe West because I lived in Simcoe and, like my colleague for Simcoe Centre, I also served on the city of Barrie council during some very trying times when we annexed parts of Innisfil township, Vesper and Oro. I can tell members that it was a very traumatic time. We could get no consensus of opinion about what we should do about anything. Then we had extensive meetings with the public.

I agree with the member for Mississauga West that the best form of government is the one closest to the people. I remember back in my time being violently opposed when they increased the term of office of municipal council people from two years to three years to make them less accountable to the public.

I have some serious concerns about this bill in so far as I can speak as a resident of the region of Durham, which went through the same sort of traumatic upheaval a few years ago, I believe at the behest of the then Conservative government. But it has done some good things in the region of Durham. It has made for better policing -- I know you share my concerns about community policing, Mr Speaker.

If the restructuring goes ahead, it will allow for the concept of greater community policing in so far as now each little village, community and municipality, in some cases, is policed on an ad hoc basis by the Ontario Provincial Police. It addresses the need for overall planning. Too often we see strip planning and planning that is not in the best interests of all the folks who live there.

If services are to remain viable I believe you have to have some form of amalgamation. To make municipalities remain viable you have to get together and amalgamate. It creates a strong local government.

I do not think it will be smooth. I think there will be all kinds of obstacles along this rocky road to amalgamation. I was surprised to hear the member for Simcoe West say there was not agreement on this. I have a note that says there was strong local support for this study, and also that the Simcoe county study, which was locally initiated, was accepted by county council by a vote of 42 to 26. It would seem to me there is some strong local support for this amalgamation, contrary to what the member suggests.

Government is considering a wide range of options for the direction of county government reform. I know the ministry is developing a comprehensive approach to reform while at the same time recognizing the diversity and differences that exist among the councils. I know that local comments and concerns are also being addressed. I am afraid I cannot support this bill because it takes away the role of the government.

Mr J. Wilson: I would ask the member for Durham East, if there is strong local support for restructuring, then why are 14 municipalities putting the question on their ballots on November 12? I do not think there is strong local support. There is a great deal of confusion out there.

I have endeavoured to highlight some of the flaws with the restructuring process specifically as it has been applied in the county of Simcoe. I have done so as a means of impressing upon my friends here in the Legislature the need to support my bill. Because the restructuring process can be hijacked and is often flawed, municipalities must be given the right of choice. They must have the right to decide whether their residents want amalgamation or the status quo. That right to date has been stolen from the residents of Simcoe county.

The continued existence of our political system is contingent upon our ability to be responsive to the public. The public has grown resentful of politicians who refuse to represent them and who repeatedly pass legislation that is not in their best interests. My private member's bill is a piece of legislation that helps both the public and its elected representatives, because it entrenches power where it rightfully belongs, in the hands of the people.

I have often heard the Premier and the NDP speak about democracy and the underlying principle that the people must be trusted to make their own decisions about what is best for them. In the election campaign, I and my colleagues had clearly learned the lessons of the past. We know that the people did not send us here so that we would turn around and tell them what is good for them. No, that nonsense must stop. We are the servants of the people. Our job is to stand up and to speak out on their behalf. They send us here to represent their views, and we must always put our best effort forward to ensure that their hopes, dreams and aspirations come true.

I ask all members of the government and members of the official opposition to join with me and my colleagues in supporting my private member's bill. We should learn from the mistakes of the past, trust in the collective wisdom of the people and give hope to democracy.

FARM INCOME

Mr Mancini moved resolution 36:

That, in the opinion of this House, given the crisis facing Ontario's agricultural economy in dealing with high input costs and low prices, which have fallen by 35% this crop year for grains and oilseeds and which have remained at depressed levels for other crops and the livestock sectors, and taking into account the fact that long-term federal-provincial price and income support programs are not scheduled to take effect until next year; given the extensive crop damage in southwestern Ontario this summer due to drought, particularly in Essex and Kent counties; given the importance of ensuring the survival of Ontario's family farms, and given the continuing policy of the NDP socialist government to ignore the problems facing the economy of rural Ontario, the government of Ontario provide immediate emergency agriculture funding in order to maintain the viability of the rural economy and family farms.

Mr Mancini: This is the continuation of the agricultural debate that has received high priority in the Legislature for this fall sitting. Why has it received high priority? Because some members in this Legislature have used all opportunities at their disposal to ensure that agriculture was in fact debated in committee.

I refer to the standing committee on resources development, a motion that had been put forward by the Liberal leader, the member for Bruce, an opposition day motion that had been put forward by the leader of the Conservative Party, and now my only opportunity for a private member's resolution for quite a period of time, given by myself freely in the interests of agriculture in Ontario.

Why have we done this? We have done this because the government has been reluctant to intervene in an appropriate way to save Ontario's rural economy, the family farm being the basis of the rural economy.

I want to quote for the record a letter sent by the Ontario Corn Producers' Association, a newsletter dated October 1991. It says, "State of Emergency." On page 3 of the letter from the corn producers, they are talking about the ministers of the day:

"We have received no commitments to date, but at least we have captured the attention of the federal ministers with our crisis campaign. We wish that we could say the same for the Ontario government. As of early September, Mr Buchanan, the Ontario Minister of Agriculture and Food, had not met with major Ontario farm groups on the income crisis, and to our knowledge he has not yet visited Kent and Essex counties where the effect of low prices has been compounded by severe 1991 summer drought.

"The minister has given no indication that his government intends to do anything about the income crisis other than offer sympathy and pocket the $4 million in gross revenue insurance plan payments, in GRIP premium rebates, which was given to it by the federal government via its announcement on April 18, 1991.

"Murray Elston, leader of the Ontario Liberal Party and official Leader of the Opposition in the Legislature, has called for an emergency meeting of the resources development committee of the Legislature. As of date of this writing, the Ontario PC House leader has supported this request and the NDP House leader has not."

Since that newsletter was sent by the corn producers, a number of things have happened. We have in fact had the standing committee on resources development hearings that I spoke of earlier. We have indeed got some attention from the Ontario government. The minister indeed did make one very quick visit to Essex county -- I am not exactly sure how many farms were toured; I am not sure how many acres of destroyed crops he was able to see, but he did make one short visit -- and we did have an announcement by the government. What did that announcement do?

Put in plain and simple terms, the announcement, as far as the government is concerned, basically gets the Ontario NDP government off the hook, and now it wants to wash its hands of the problems facing Ontario's rural economy and the family farms in Ontario.

I say to the NDP socialist members we are not going to allow them to do that. We are not going to allow them to wash their hands of the difficulties facing Ontario's rural communities because they announced one $35-million program. In their Agenda for People during the last election, they promised $100 million and it did not have anything to do with the crisis that we are facing today, and of the $100 million they only forwarded to the farmers $50 million.

We were in committee only a few short weeks ago, and socialist mathematics is something to behold. We were told by the minister that the $50 million the government had allocated to the farmers, to the rural economy of Ontario, in fact equalled $100 million. That is what we were told, and we were expected to believe that. We do not believe it and neither do the farmers. Rural Ontario is waiting to be treated in the same manner as the government treats unionized industrial and government workers and doctors in this province. That is what we are waiting for.

The Treasurer of this province has consistently said that it is the members of the opposition who pit one group in society against another group. I say to him that the opposite is true. It is the NDP socialist government that is doing that. They are the ones who very clearly said early in their term, "We have lots of money for doctors." They said it and they made a deal with Ontario doctors and they put up the money. They delivered for the doctors.

They said that early in their term and they took action in a number of areas where industrial jobs were threatened. They were willing to pour out hundreds of millions of dollars at the request of the union bosses here in Ontario. They were willing to buy into de Havilland to protect industrialized jobs. They were willing to raise the wages of nurses. When it came to farmers, never have I seen such a measly effort: $35 million for 60,000 farm families who feed Ontario, who export billions of dollars in farm-gate value, who support the rural economy.

If we divide 60,000 families into $35 million, we get a whopping $580 per farm family. If we had the time to do some interesting mathematics, I would say that some of the highly paid civil servants we have in our government, whose wages were increased anywhere from 11% to 14% by this government, must have got a $580 increase biweekly, and they are not in a financial crisis in the way the farmers find themselves today.

We brought to the minister's attention the problems of the drought. Let me read to the members some of the headlines that we have to deal with every day. I know they are comfortable over there. I know they are very comfortable. "Another three and half years before the election, you know, so we can maybe get by without really helping the farmers this year. If some of them go bankrupt, at least we have helped the other people we were concerned about."

October 8: "Drought Sours Prospects for Owner of Sugar Bush: The Sugar Maple Trees Are All Dying."

"Region's Farms Ravaged by Drought of 1991," Windsor Star, August 20. It shows a farmer from the Chatham area plowing under his crop instead of harvesting the crop.

"Farmers Fight for Their Lives," August 7, Windsor Star.

"Belle River Farmers Gathered Together to Talk About Their Plights: Generation of Farmers Will Be Lost, Say Officials of Agricultural Group," Amherstburg Echo, August 8.

"Drought Has Been Rotten to County Tomato Fields." Leamington, the tomato capital of North America, maybe the world, has been devastated.

"Essex County Declared a Disaster Area." The county of Essex, at its county council meeting, declared our county a disaster area.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Farnan): Order. The member's time has expired. We will return to the member later in the debate.

Mr J. Wilson: I am pleased to join in the debate today on the motion regarding agriculture put forward by the member for Essex South. I am pleased to support the motion on behalf of my colleagues in the Ontario PC Party. I would say to the member, though, I think the motion is a little late in the sense that my leader put a motion forward that was, frankly, voted against by the NDP.

An hon member: When was it?

Mr J. Wilson: It was a motion some two weeks calling upon the government to give real financial assistance to farmers. The NDP voted against that motion.

I again commend the member for Essex South for his motion today because it also fits in with what we were discussing in the last hour, my private member's bill which fights for the rights of rural Ontarians. All indications I have from the government members in their speeches are that once again at noon today they are going to vote against rights of rural Ontarians.

Whether we are talking about forced restructurings or amalgamations or support to farmers, it is essential that this government start to act for all Ontarians, not just for the big unions. In my remarks last week around the farm crisis in Ontario, and in response to the motion of my leader, the member for Nipissing, asking for further assistance for farmers, I mentioned some of the same points that the member for Essex South has mentioned this morning. They are able to come up with $250 million through Ontario Hydro to bail out Elliot Lake and Kapuskasing, some 6,000 jobs.

They are able to come up with $150 million for the Canadian Auto Workers, for Bob White and de Havilland, for which there were supposed to be, I believe, some 4,600 jobs. Since then de Havilland has announced the layoff of some 1,300 or 1,600 workers, so there are even fewer jobs they are trying to maintain and protect there, and de Havilland is a sinkhole for the taxpayers' money.

The federal government had the good sense to finally get out of the business of building planes. Every time one comes off the production line, it loses money. The more bloody planes they build, the more money they lose. Throwing more taxpayers' dollars at that company is not the way to go.

We are firmly on the record as opposing that, only because we say to the government: "You've got a $9.7-billion, a $10-billion or a $12-billion deficit this year, unheard of in the history of the province. You're going to double the province's debt over the next four years. Pity those of us who will succeed you in government, because we will have a very difficult time redressing and correcting the economic disaster you guys are creating for this province."

I go back to priorities. This government has no priorities. If it does, its priorities do not reflect the needs and rights of the people of rural Ontario. I am proud to represent a riding that has a pleasant urban-rural mix, the riding of Simcoe West. My largest municipality is the town of Collingwood, with some 12,500 people. I have some other towns and villages, but I have a great deal of rural area.

I have a great number of farmers who are among those 60,000 farm families in Ontario that are suffering. If the government would get its priorities straight, be honest and come clean with the people of Ontario, it would tell us and show us by putting more money forward in the area of agriculture.

For every $1,000 in support we give to farmers, statistics and studies indicate the return farmers put into their local communities is sevenfold. There is some $7,000 worth of economic activity generated in their local communities and the farm community for every $1,000 of support; not losing money as every time a plane comes off the assembly line at de Havilland. These people, the good people in farm families, produce food that we enjoy eating. They produce economic activity that is positive.

The government says so often, and it is only talk to date, that rural Ontario and a farm strategy will be part of its industrial and economic strategy. First, it does not have an industrial strategy. Second, its economic strategy to date is a disaster, and at every opportunity in this House and outside of this Legislature we try to steer it on the right path.

The government pays lipservice to rural Ontario, but emotion has to come forward. The member for Essex South spoke so eloquently about the need of farmers in his area, particularly with the drought situation in his area, but it is just as true in my area and in all other areas of Ontario. There are 60,000 farm families that are looking to this government for assistance.

The day after my leader brought a motion into this House asking for assistance, the government managed to come up with $35.5 million. It pales in comparison to the money it has been able to give to big unions. The $35.5 million is not enough. With prices having bottomed out in the grains and oilseeds sector, and with this government's failure to sign on to the net income stabilization account for this crop year -- it is not signing on to NISA until next year -- we know there is a gap there.

The federal government is turning away from short-term programs and going with NISA and the gross revenue insurance plan for the long term. This government is going long term starting next year; $35.5 million this year. We know the need in the grains and oilseeds sector is some $124 million. It is far short of what the real need is out there.

Farmers are getting antsy about this. They are respectable people who normally would not take up a picket sign. They were not brought up in the ideology of the government members' party where they used to picket for ever. They are respectable people who have better things to do than picket those people, better things to do than to meet in Lucknow, which they did a couple of weeks ago and which members of my caucus attended. Over 1,000 farmers there were trying very desperately to get the government's attention.

I think the member for Essex South pointed out that the Minister of Agriculture and Food has done some touring but has failed to grasp the need out there. He has failed to convince his caucus colleagues and his cabinet colleagues around the cabinet table of the degree of need out there. Clearly the government's priorities are somewhere else.

I have a theory that the government is planning on never really addressing the needs of all Ontarians, because probably its pollsters and Gerry Caplan and the backroom boys in the Premier's office tell it that it only needs 38% of the vote to win the next election. It can ignore the vast majority of Ontarians as long as it keeps the unions happy, as long as it keeps what we call the 1991 NDP coalition happy. If it keeps that 38% happy by doing the pappy socialist crap it is doing, it will probably win the next election.

We are going to do our best, as members of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party, to show the people of Ontario the government's true agenda. We know for a fact that the true agenda does not include rural Ontario, that the true agenda does nothing to address the needs of the 60,000 farm families in Ontario.

I am pleased to support this motion. In addition to the motion and the very strong resolution brought forward by my leader the member for Nipissing two weeks ago, it is sad that another motion dealing with agriculture has to come to this House. Those people sit there and heckle and laugh and seem to have no concern for rural Ontario. We are not going to take it any more and farmers are not going to take it any more. They are getting organized, because the government seems to like organized people. The government will hear loud and clear, and should be hearing now loud and clear.

We met last night. My good colleague the member for S-D-G & East Grenville -- sand, dust and gravel and East Grenville -- spoke at a public meeting in my riding last night in the village of Creemore. A great number of people showed up to hear our comments and hear about this government's response to the farm crisis in Ontario. There were a lot of concerned people at that meeting. They recognize that the government has not lived up to its responsibilities to rural Ontario, that it has not exercised rights it is willing to give to other sectors, particularly big unions. It is willing to give them rights, but it is not willing to help farm families.

It is a sad day in this Legislature that we and our colleagues in the Liberal Party once again have to remind this government of the serious need that is out there in the agricultural community.

Mr Hayes: I might say to the two previous governments, welcome aboard. I am very pleased they are finally seeing the plight of farmers in this province.

Mr Villeneuve: Why did you vote against our motion the other day then?

Mr Hayes: I compliment the member for Essex South on the resolution. I think it is a very good resolution. However, I would say it is about 10 years late.

Mr Villeneuve: Where have you been the last 10 years? What was the price of commodities then? Come on, Pat, be honest.

Mr Hayes: It says "given the continuing policy of the NDP government to ignore the problems facing the economy of rural Ontario." Let me say that this government is committed to Ontario agriculture and the food industry. We listen to the farmers and we act.

Mr Villeneuve: Careful. You are going to break you arm patting yourself on the back.

Interjections.

Mr Hayes: The Minister of Agriculture and Food, along with myself and other parliamentary assistants, the member for Huron and the member for Chatham-Kent, and many of my other colleagues on this side met with farmers, farm groups and rural organizations last fall to discuss farm finances. Farmers told me when I went around the province that their interest costs were too high. We responded at that time with the $50-million farm interest assistance program. That was welcomed by all sides of this House.

Mr Villeneuve: It sure was. What was in the Agenda for People?

Mr Hayes: Unlike other governments, we did that. We did not wait until the budget to do it, because we saw the immediate need and we did it right away.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Farnan): Order. I would ask for the co-operation of all members. Unfortunately, since the member for S-D-G & East Grenville arrived, the tone in the House has disintegrated. I would ask the members' co-operation in allowing the member to speak.

Mr Hayes: With the drought situation and the problem of low prices that farmers have been faced with, especially in the ridings in Essex and Kent counties and other parts of this province, some of those people have been hit with a double whammy. We responded very quickly with a $35-million emergency assistance package for Ontario farmers, which I might add was very well received by individual farmers and the different farm associations.

I am particularly pleased that Kent and Essex counties will be receiving a fair share of the available assistance. Crop insurance will also be making significant payments, approximately $40 million, to the eligible producers in those counties and also across the province -- or just $40 million for that area alone. The ministry estimates that approximately $5.7 million will go to farmers in need in just those two counties alone.

In addition, I am pleased to say that I have been assured by the minister that staff will soon begin consultations on the $3.5 million set aside for farmers suffering from low prices and of course the drought. Essex and Kent counties will receive a substantial share of that on top of the others.

I would add that the minister responded to my request to tour the area and meet individual farmers. He met with us and the Essex drought committee, and I also have to compliment those individuals. The response to date is an indication of this government's sensitivity to all agricultural areas in Ontario.

There have been comments about the Minister of Agriculture and Food not going and looking specifically at some of these areas. Let me tell members that just in that part of the county alone, he has been there three times already. I do not know of any Minister of Agriculture and Food who has done that within a year.

What other provincial government has done this? Governments that are brothers and sisters of these people here have ignored farmers in Saskatchewan, Alberta, Manitoba and places like that.

This government's work has only begun. What is clear to this government is that the rural economy is a key component of the Ontario economy. Farmers, local stores, local industry and the infrastructure which services the rural economy have all been under a certain level of strain in recent years. Unlike previous governments, this government is committed to renewing rural Ontario and we will all benefit from this.

The Minister of Agriculture and Food and I are currently examining options for long-term farm finance and I look forward to the consultations which will be occurring with the farm community in the near future. Together, this government and farmers will develop a credit program which is much needed and well overdue in Ontario. There are many pressures facing the agriculture and food industry in Ontario which are a result of federal policies. The federal monetary policy of high interest rates has seriously increased the cost structure of our farmers. The lack of federal adjustment money promised during the free trade debate has also caused additional pressure on Ontario farmers.

At the same time, our food processing sector in Ontario is undergoing rationalization and restructuring. This process has been worsened by the free trade agreement. Some of these activities impact on farmers to reduce markets, on labour through lost jobs and on these companies, as they are unable to compete with US firms. This government will also be working with producers on labour and environmental issues and together we will develop long-term approaches for the industry.

Let me close my comments by saying that these are just some of the initiatives the Minister of Agriculture and Food is developing in partnership with all participants in the food system and I hope the minister has all our support as these initiatives are developed.

Just before closing, very quickly, here is an

article from the Chatham Daily News. Scott McGeachy from the Kent County Federation of Agriculture "said he was 'pleased' with the financial assistance announced...by...minister Elmer Buchanan." He also stated that "Essex-Kent MPP Pat Hayes was to be congratulated for the important role he played in making" this possible. Here is a farmer in Raleigh township, "It's not going to save everybody, but I'm happy with it." "Any help is a positive sign, he said. 'All we need now is the federal government to contribute their fair share.'" Here is another

article from the Ridgetown Dominion, "A warm thank you to the province for this support." We have lots of articles like that.

This government is committed to rural Ontario. This government is committed to preserving the family farm in Ontario. This government will continue to correct a lot of the mistakes and the lack of political will of the previous governments. We will address this and we will be working with farmers, because we know that the family farm is the backbone of this country. We ask members to join us and get a little political will themselves to help us to address this serious problem.

Mr Ramsay: It is a pleasure to be standing in my place as the member for Timiskaming and as a former Minister of Agriculture and Food to speak for the second time in two weeks on this issue. The members of the House are to be congratulated that they have brought forward these motions so that agriculture is finally getting the importance in the Ontario Legislature that it deserves. When we look at the various issues that are discussed in the Ontario Legislature and what seem to be priorities of Ontario governments, agricultural policy does not necessarily take the place it should. I am very pleased that it is.

In fact, yesterday afternoon in our standing committee on resources development we were concluding our discussions leading to an interim report we will be bringing forward to this House in the next few weeks that will start to lay out a few ideas that all parties working together are starting to consider. I would hope that the Ministry of Agriculture and Food will start to work on some of these ideas.

We are standing here in our places today speaking to agriculture. I certainly salute the member for Essex South in bringing this motion forward today, because there is a crisis in agriculture. There is no point in standing in our places as politicians trying to smooth over the situation that is out there. There definitely is a crisis, and it is happening not just in Ontario but to our fellow rural people across this country. We hope today the federal government will be coming forth with some assistance.

The people out there who are watching and maybe are not familiar with what is going on in rural Ontario must be asking: "Why is it that farmers are always asking for assistance? Why is it that governments in this country respond to that plea for assistance?" I must make the point that we do not, like other commodities, have fair trading rules in this world. In fact, as has been on TV lately, we see that European farmers receive about $10 a bushel for their grain while the going price in Ontario is about $2 a bushel.

You cannot even grow a bushel of wheat for $4 or $5, so you need $6 or $7 just to start to break even and make a profit. We have to get that level playing field across the world when it comes to agricultural production so that the prices are returning to the farmer what it costs to produce -- and then some, because it is important for our farmers in this country and especially in Ontario to be profitable.

There is also a crisis in this province right now because in southwestern Ontario, especially in Kent and Essex counties, we have had incredible climatic conditions this year, those being drought. In the last few years it has sometimes been too much water, but this year it was drought. So we have not only low prices that have been quoted earlier today as being 35% below the low prices of previous years, but also we have very low and poor yields, and therefore the farmer is suffering a double whammy.

It is important that government assist the farmers in the short term, but it is also important that governments start to address the concerns of agriculture in the long term. As I said, we were having those discussions in the standing committee on resources development, all of us from both sides of the House, the last few days. We have been listening to the concerns of the different commodity boards and the farm associations, bringing forward as they have been some very constructive ideas of what we can be doing.

In the last few years in this country we have started to bring in much more appropriate income stabilization programs such as GRIP and NISA. It is imperative that this government get involved in NISA and enrich its involvement in NISA. In a contributory plan such as this, where the farmer, the provincial government and the federal gov ernment pay into it, if the province increases its share, it means the federal government will have to also increase its contribution and therefore the farmers will receive more government assistance through this program.

It is a very good program and it deserves the support of the Ontario government. I would certainly plead with the Ontario government to get involved, as it had not, unfortunately, earlier this year, and to enrich that involvement so that the farmers of Ontario and the rest of the country can benefit by this program.

What can we do in the long term? It is a difficult subject, because we have an open marketplace. It is very difficult to say to people that somehow people have to pay more for food. When we look at the component price of a product we purchase in a grocery store, a loaf of bread, for example, a farmer does not receive very much for that product. In fact, some people will say for a $1 or $1.30 loaf of bread there is about four or five cents of wheat in that loaf.

The problem with the food production system today is that the consumer is demanding a much more value added product, therefore the farm-gate value in a product is very, very low. Much of the food now goes from the farm into the factories where much value is added because people want convenience foods and microwave-ready, etc. So food is growing in expense, but the farmer's share of that is very low.

What we need to do, and what government can do, and what specifically the Ontario government can do -- and I am glad the member across the way is here who instigated a task force on long-term financing. I would encourage that member to take that report up with the ministry. I think it is very important that the government of Ontario, for the first time, starts to enter the long-term financing of agricultural producers in this province. I think it is very necessary. There are obviously some problems of how we go about that. I, for one, certainly would not want to see some sort of beginning-farmer program.

This is not the time to entice our young people to get into farming. We are having great trouble in keeping the farmers who are already on the land, already producing food for the people of Ontario, and keeping them profitable.

There must be a way we could introduce a farm financing program that farmers can access for a portion of their long-term financing needs at a reasonable interest rate. That would be the only cost to the government, because what we are talking about is financing. We are talking about access to loans. The cost would be that, yes, I would ask the government to subsidize that interest rate so that we would have a low, steady interest rate the farmer can count on, so that he or she will be able to fight those vagaries of the marketplace and the ever increasing high input costs but know he or she has a steady payment, as far as principle and interest on that long-term financing is concerned.

I would go as far as to suggest to the members across the way in the government that possibly they look, as a source of capital for that financing program, at the Province of Ontario Savings Office. Why do we not, working to gether in this House, basically make the Province of Ontario Savings Office maybe the farmers' bank in Ontario? In most towns in Ontario, we have a Province of Ontario Savings Office. Many people deposit their money, and I know it has tremendous assets there. That might be the pool of capital we could work with.

Instead of the other investments the Province of Ontario Savings Office, or POSO, as we call it, is involved in, maybe that could be the pool of capital the Ministry of Agriculture and Food could tap into so that we in Ontario would finally have a pool of capital that is totally dedicated to the farmers, the food producers of Ontario.

I think this would go a long way to help alleviate those long-term problems and give a sense of certainty, as much as we can in Ontario, to the producers of food in Ontario that their government cares and, through the government, the people of Ontario care about agriculture and understand that agricultural production is absolutely essential for a sovereign jurisdiction, for a sovereign nation.

That is what it really boils down to. Why are we involved in this? Why is the food industry more important to us than any other industry? It is too bad, but television sets have not been made in this country in the last 10 years. I bemoan that fact and I feel badly about that. But that has gone to more competitive jurisdictions. Sad as it is, we do not rally around trying to get television sets produced in this country.

But all of us, from all sides of this House, do rally around when our ability to produce food is threatened, because to be a sovereign nation I believe we must fight to maintain the ability to feed ourselves. That has to be paramount. If we said we were just going to rely on the midwestern United States, for instance, for our dairy products or our wheat products, we would be putting ourselves in very great political jeopardy.

And what about the environment? I do not think it is wise for the world to put its eggs literally in one basket, especially the food basket of the United States. What if there was a tremendous drought in Ukraine or in the midwestern United States and we were solely reliant upon those particular places for our nourishment? Then we would be putting ourselves and the world in great jeopardy. It is important that all jurisdictions of the world produce as much food as they can.

What is interesting, when you look at the environmental sustainability of Ontario agriculture, is the way we have organized ourselves in this jurisdiction so that we do not force the environment to produce our food, because we have regulated our systems in many commodities to produce what we need to consume. Therefore, there is another advantage to our marketing board system in that it is environmentally sustainable, unlike the Americans who push production and then have to store a lot of that production because in many years they overproduce.

We produce what we need and therefore we do not push our agricultural resources. We have very sustainable agriculture, and I would say to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture and Food that he should endeavour to support the supply-management system in this province. I think it is very important, besides being a marketing system.

Mr Villeneuve: They are undermining it. You know that.

Mr Ramsay: I am afraid they might be undermining it. My friend from the Tories is reminding me. I just want to encourage them in a very positive way that they must support this system. It is very important. It is more than just guaranteeing a price for farmers. It is also, I think, one of the cornerstones to agricultural environmental sustainability, and I would hope that the member is doing that.

I would also want to caution the government members to look at the accumulated impact of other areas that they want to work on in society, because they are going to have a profound effect on agriculture.

While I am on the environment, I would like to caution the minister, as we all want to see the absolutely cleanest environment we can possibly manage here in Ontario, that he and the parliamentary assistant must be very careful that they work with the farm community as we bring in better environmental controls. We must make sure we use the carrot rather than the stick and work with our farm producers and our food processors in cleaning up our environment, but make sure we phase it in and work in consultation with our agricultural community.

Yes, there are things we do on the farm that are not correct, and we have to start to work with the Ministry of the Environment and other people who are pointing these things out to us in the farm community. I want to work with the farm community in bettering our practices, and I think we can do that better.

But this is a warning to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of the Environment not to come with a big, heavy stick into the agricultural community, but to work with the processors and the producers to make sure, yes, that we have sustainable agriculture, but that we bring that in by working in consultation with the farmers so that we do not disrupt that activity which is precious to the economy of Ontario.

Lastly, I also want to comment on many of the labour laws that are being anticipated by this government, the changes to the Employment Standards Act and other acts that are coming forward. I believe the ministers over there must also be careful that we do not unduly subject the agricultural industry to major changes overnight. We do want to bring our economy into the modern day and make sure that we have very sound occupational health and safety legislation, good legislation that is fair. We want to make sure we do not bring that in with a big stick to people.

We want to work with the people, especially with the fragility of the agricultural community right now and the agricultural sector. It is very, very important that we work with this community.

I would like to close by saying I welcome the opportunity to be speaking again within two weeks on the very important subject of agriculture, what it means to our province, what it means to the economy of this province. One in five jobs in Ontario is dependent upon the agrifood industry. I am not sure if people are aware of how important the agricultural industry is as one of the generators of the tremendous economy of Ontario.

It is needed to be a sovereign nation, so that we have the ability to feed ourselves, but also it is a very prime component of the economy of this province and therefore deserves to be supported by all the members of this House. I am sure all of us agree today that the government of this province should continue to increase its support to Ontario agriculture.

Mr Villeneuve: I too want to compliment and thank my colleague the member for Essex South. Our party and I will be supporting him 110%. First I want to tell my colleague, and he knows of it, that I was in Leamington several weeks ago. I have a copy of the report on agriculture as prepared by the drought committee for Essex county. It outlines very clearly that indeed some $20 million is needed just to replace what was lost in the drought of 1991, not compensating for the very low prices.

That message is very clear. One visit to the Leamington area was certainly worth 1,000-plus words. They have some very drastic conditions. Crop insurance will not be of great assistance, because they have had three out of four very devastating years. As most members know, the crop insurance is based on previous averages. When and if you claim more than once every five years, you have major problems.

This government claims to be listening. This government claims to be trying to do everything for everyone. I just came from a committee room downstairs where 14 registry offices were closed in rural Ontario by this government, and the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture just got up and said how great the things they were doing for rural Ontario were. One of the great things is that they closed three registry offices with one stroke of the pen. It was supported by the committee this morning. I want to put that on the record.

Some additional $515 million were given to the civil service of Ontario this year. That is quite rich. The $35.5 million agriculture got one week ago pales in comparison to the additional $515 million the civil service of Ontario got.

De Havilland got $151 million to save 4,900 jobs. I understand that is now 1,300 less; they are down to 3,600. Still, that is $151 million in comparison to an additional $35.5 million that has been committed by this government for 60,000 farm families.

I was recently talking to a beef producer who tells me he has not made a profit in the last five years. He has broken even. What is even worse is that on his assets and liabilities sheet he has lost $100,000 of equity. Members should name me any other business that has worked for nothing for five years and has $100,000 less equity for the effort put in at the end of five years. They will not find any.

I have here the budget for 1991-92 for Quebec, which is not nearly as rich as Ontario -- the estimates for le ministère de l'Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l'Alimentation. Would members believe $711 million for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in Quebec, almost $100 million more than the support this government provides in Ontario?

I come from a riding right along the Ontario-Quebec border. It is very difficult for me to explain to the grain growers in Bainsville and in Glengarry county when they cannot get $100 a ton for their corn, yet their neighbours right across the line in Quebec are getting $180. That $80 is support from the province of Quebec.

I brought it to the standing committee on resources development and questioned John Core, who is the chairman of the Ontario Milk Marketing Board. Under a supply management system that works, three items have to be in place: cost of production, the value of the product and import restrictions. Those are the only three things that have to be there in order for supply management to work. If one of those items is missing from that formula, you have disaster. You have the worst of two worlds, because you are producing under quota and have no control over the price.

Those are some of the problems facing agriculture in general. In Essex county, with the drought conditions that have occurred, we have a situation that is almost intolerable. In Farm and Country here we have insolvent agricultural producers 19%, severe problems 13%, so 32% of the 60,000 families in Ontario are either insolvent or in severe financial difficulty. That comes from the most recent edition of Farm and Country.

Mr Hayes: When did this start?

Mr Villeneuve: Certainly the price of commodities was never lower than it is now.

An editorial in the Corn Producer entitled "Minimal Consultation" says:

"We cannot recall a minister of agriculture, provincial or federal, who was less inclined to meet and consult with major farm organizations than the present Ontario Minister of Agriculture and Food. The NDP rural caucus has refused repeated requests by different commodity groups to meet and discuss their problems."

Those are not my words. Congratulations to the member for Essex South. We are supporting him.

Mr Hope: For a second I thought there was a typographical error in the resolution. Where it has "ignore," I thought it would say "help" rural Ontario, especially in Chatham and Essex-Kent, as we talk about the assistance that is needed for the people of rural Ontario, especially in my riding, which was hit by the drought which added extra problems to those family farms.

In this House, to understand the day-to-day agendas, the opposition members wake up in the morning and flip a coin to find out whether they are Doctor Save or Doctor Spend. Today they woke up as Doctor Spend.

When we tried to understand what was going on around the agricultural community during the campaign, I made it quite clear I was not an agricultural expert. That was one of the best things they wanted to hear from a local member, that he is not an agricultural expert, because they want to be listened to instead of being told how to operate their small businesses and their small farms. That is why in this election the people of southwestern rural Ontario made it quite clear by electing New Democratic members in most of the ridings of Essex-Kent, Windsor, Lambton, Sarnia, Elgin, Middlesex, and it goes on into London.

A number of the problems are at issue in this resolution. The resolution is redundant now because this government has come across and helped people.

Mr B. Murdoch: You never got elected. You got in by default. Don't ever think you got in by reason. You never had a seat, Randy.

The Speaker: Order. I know this is a matter about which the member for Grey feels strongly, but I ask him to temper his language and allow the member for Chatham-Kent to continue his speech.

Mr Hope: It is nice that they try to override it, but it is the fact that today we have a number of members on this side.

During the drought and during this time frame I was educated by the farmers of rural Ontario who were affected by it, making sure that they educated me. This government has come through with a short-term program, and we look forward to the long-term program we are wishing to put forward. A number of the farming communities have talked to me about when all this started. In 1981 and 1982, when the recession hit, a lot of family farms were affected.

Now I am hearing opposition members yelling and screaming, "What are you doing?" They should let me tell them what the Liberals and Conservatives did in the past. They put programs together to help out the bankers and the bank institutions instead of helping those farmers.

In my riding a lot of farmers have been affected by mismanagement of government issues and policies, not making sure they could assist the farmers in my community, and they ask me what I am doing for them. We are making sure that when we put $50 million into effect, the $50 million goes to the farmers. When we put this program into place we made sure the program went to the farmers to help them in the drought and help them in other areas across the province. That is what is called helping rural Ontario.

We say we have to help the family farm. I am going to use as an example a constituent of mine who is a major farm leader in my community. He said to me: "I think we should commend you on your hard work this summer on behalf of the Kent county farmers. This aid package, I believe, is a direct result of rural MPPs like yourself working on behalf of the farmers. Maybe us farmers should have voted NDP a long time ago." He said this to make sure that we help the farmers.

We understand the first part of this resolution that deals with the people in rural Ontario being affected by the commodity prices being lower, but it is going to take through GATT. I am sure the member opposite listened to Canada AM this morning. More than just the provincial government has to get on board. It is time the federal government made sure it had fair trade policies for the people of rural Ontario, so they can live and work their small businesses viably and effectively.

Mr Sutherland: I am pleased to participate in the debate this morning. I am sure the member for Essex South was up late last night getting his remarks ready for today. I congratulate him for bringing the issue of agriculture to the forefront. I do not necessarily agree with his resolution.

Let me just say that we all recognize that the issues of agriculture are very severe. They are extremely challenging and they certainly have not just developed over the past year, although the accumulation of many years of low commodity prices and high interest rates has created a great number of problems.

I and the farmers in my riding are very pleased with the response this government has provided. Before the most recent announcement the farmers in my riding had received over $2 million in interest relief, which was well needed. They got it during the latter part of the summer and the early part of the fall. It was very important for them to get it. They are anticipating that they will get more than another $1 million out of the most recent announcement, so well over $3 million, and it could be very close to $4 million, is going into my riding to support farmers.

The opposition can say that we are not concerned about agriculture or about the impact of this past summer and the significant decline in commodity prices, but that simply is not the truth.

We heard the member for S-D-G & East Grenville talk about registry offices and about this government not supporting rural communities. I want to remind him that one of the key areas for rural communities across this province has been rural post offices in many small villages. We will not comment on how many of those post offices have actually been closed, undermining rural communities.

I am proud of this government and what it has done for farmers so far. We do need to do more, but I will not be supporting the resolution.

Mr Mancini: I would like to use the remaining two moments to put a few more facts on the record so that all listening can understand exactly the situation.

Since assuming office, the NDP's only short-term plan for agriculture has been a $50-million advance to the Ontario family farm interest rate reduction program, which was instituted by the previous Liberal government. It enhanced by $50 million an already existing program implemented by the previous government. That was in its budget.

The government promised $100 million in the election; $50 million does not equal $100 million, and that has nothing to do with the crisis in commodity prices or with the problems caused by the drought. I want the government members to understand that. I want the general public and the farm community that is watching to know that the members of this socialist government were spendthrifts when it came to their friends. They had $515 million for the civil service in one year, they are ready to spend $150 million for de Havilland in one year and they are ready to open up the vault for the doctors, the nurses and everyone else, but when it comes to farmers there are only crumbs left on the table.

The parliamentary assistant to the minister can congratulate himself all he wants. As a matter of fact, he needs a third hand to pat himself on the back. But his self-congratulation is not going to address the crisis facing 60,000 farm families. We condemn the government for its lack of action.

The Speaker: The time provided for private members' public business has expired.

Interjections.

The Speaker: When the House has come to order, we will be able to deal with the ballot items. We will deal first with ballot item 35 standing in the name of Mr Wilson (Simcoe West).

COUNTY OF SIMCOE ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LE COMTE DE SIMCOE

The House divided on Mr J. Wilson's motion for second reading of Bill 132, which was negatived on the following vote:

La motion de M. J. Wilson pour la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 132, mise aux voix, est rejetee :

Ayes/Pour -- 19

Arnott, Cunningham, Curling, Harnick, Harris, Jackson, Mahoney, Mancini, Miclash, Murdoch, B., O'Neill, Y., Phillips, G., Ramsay, Runciman, Sorbara, Tilson, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Wilson, J.

Nays/Contre -- 31

Abel, Caplan, Carter, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Drainville, Duignan, Farnan, Fletcher, Frankford, Hansen, Harrington, Hayes, Hope, Klopp, Lessard, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Martin, Mills, Murdock, S., Sterling, Sutherland, Ward, B., Ward, M., Wessenger, Wilson, G., Winninger, Wiseman, Wood.

FARM INCOME

The House divided on Mr Mancini's motion, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes -- 23

Arnott, Caplan, Cunningham, Curling, Harnick, Harris, Jackson, Jordan, Mahoney, Mancini, Miclash, Murdoch, B., O'Neill, Y., Phillips, G., Poole, Ramsay, Runciman, Sorbara, Sterling, Tilson, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Wilson, J.

Nays -- 29

Abel, Carter, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Drainville, Duignan, Farnan, Fletcher, Frankford, Hansen, Harrington, Hayes, Hope, Klopp, Lessard, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Martin, Mills, Murdock, S., Sutherland, Ward, B., Ward, M., Wessenger, Wilson, G., Winninger, Wiseman, Wood.

The House recessed at 1214.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr Sola: When is procrastination a virtue and when it is a vice? In looking at the Treasurer's recent statement on spending adjustments, it would seem that to put off for tomorrow what can be done today is a vice unless it is done by the government. Then, miraculously, procrastination becomes a virtue. This is confirmed by the statement of the Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet when he describes this as "restraint" and "management of resources." "Loss of control and government mismanagement" is a more appropriate definition.

Let's examine both statements. Let's put this restraint into perspective. Let's look at this management or, more precisely, government mismanagement. In their outline for spending adjustments, the word "delay" appears 10 times. When accompanied with words such as "unexpected" and "unforeseen," how can the NDP claim to be managing government spending? How can the NDP describe unexpected delays and unforeseen delays as restraint? As Shakespeare would say, "Much ado about nothing."

For instance, of $460 million in one-time savings, $434 million is beyond the government's control. Only $26 million may be under partial government control, of which 50% or $13 million was a conscious decision by the NDP. This decision to renege on $13 million in payments to colleges and universities shows precisely where education stands in the NDP's sense of priorities.

BIOMEDICAL WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr Villeneuve: There was a very troubling report in the Hamilton Spectator recently regarding the discovery of an illegal medical waste dump near Brantford. The dump was located on the weekend by a private citizen who found it on the Six Nations Reserve. This dump covers two to three acres and is up to five feet in depth, containing hazardous medical waste such as syringes, needles, an empty intravenous bag and at least one blank prescription pad from a hospital.

Officials of the provincial Ministry of the Environment have visited the site but have not yet told anybody what they found. This dump site is near McKenzie Creek, and if any hazardous materials are seeping into the ground water, there could be very serious consequences for natives on the reserve, as well as for anyone else living in the area. I understand the Ministry of the Environment has little power to act because the property is on an Indian reserve but that does not remove the government's responsibility to work with the natives at Six Nations.

I raise this issue for two reasons. First, and most important, there is potentially a serious health threat in the area. Second, there is no one else to raise the issue. There is no one here representing the citizens of Brant-Haldimand because the government and the Premier will not call a by-election to replace our former colleague Bob Nixon. Once again I am urging the government to call that by-election to give the people of Brant-Haldimand a voice in this Legislature once again.

JOHN SIMPSON

Mr Owens: It gives me great pleasure to rise today to pay tribute to a constituent of mine, Mr John Simpson. We are all concerned about the rise of crime in our various constituencies. Not only is John concerned about the rise in crime; he is also concerned about crime prevention in Scarborough. He has devoted many long hours and recruited many volunteers and worked hard to make the community a safer place. For eight years now, John has been involved with the Neighbourhood Watch program and is currently chairperson of number 63 Mason District Neighbourhood Watch.

John wants to ensure a safer community and is dedicated to assisting the police. He does many things for his community: preparing a newsletter, distributing crime reports and lobbying all levels of government for funding for Neighbourhood Watch programs.

I would like to take this opportunity to urge the city of Scarborough to do as its sister city North York has done, which is to fund a full-time Neighbourhood Watch volunteer co-ordinator.

Through the hard work that my constituent John Simpson has done, he has been instrumental in establishing the Crime Prevention Resource Centre in the city. This not only serves the residents of Scarborough Centre, but all the residents of Scarborough.

We have the utmost respect for John Simpson and the fine work of the Neighbourhood Watch program. Because of the efforts of John Simpson and of the many volunteers like John, Scarborough is a safer and better place to live.

MISSISSAUGA BOARD OF TRADE

Mr Mahoney: It is with great pleasure that I rise today to welcome, joining us in the west gallery, a delegation from the Mississauga Board of Trade. Since 1976, the board of trade has become an institution with great influence and respect in our city, and indeed across the province and around the country.

A sign of the economic times would be that the membership of our board has dropped from a high of 3,200 down to 2,000, something I would like the government and the Treasurer to take note of when they are attempting to look at the record high deficits that they are bringing forward. Notwithstanding that, this board still ranks as the second largest in the province and the sixth in the entire country, operating with a staff of 23 people and completely funded by its own members.

The Mississauga Board of Trade has grown in prominence municipally, provincially and federally by establishing a policy review committee giving depth to business-related issues. The board has emerged as an important advocacy group for business.

Much of the success of our board of trade can be attributed to its executive director, Lois Gibson, who on September 30 of this year retired after 11 years of service with the board. She has an outstanding record of service. She was the first woman to be appointed as the president of the Chamber of Commerce Executives of Canada and the first woman to receive Manager of the Year and many other awards. I congratulate Lois Gibson on her retirement and wish her well, and I thank the members of the board for coming today.

HUNTING AND FISHING IN ALGONQUIN PARK

Mr Arnott: The Minister of Natural Resources and minister responsible for native affairs has again made a mockery of the public consultation process.

Last March, the minister stated he would be consulting with all interested parties on the interim hunting and fishing agreement with the Algonquins of Golden Lake. In this week's announcement regarding the release of a draft document, the minister notes that he would have liked more time for public discussion but that the formal negotiations were far more complex than he had originally anticipated.

The minister is aware of the importance of this agreement as it relates to the management of this province's valuable natural resources. Interest groups are not pleased with his arbitrary 48-hour consultation process on what appears to be a done deal. As the Federation of Ontario Naturalists has stated, any real change is unlikely as the document is to be signed by the band and the government on or before October 15.

We ask the minister that all interested parties be allowed to fully participate in these important discussions on the future of Algonquin Park. We agree that an equitable settlement can be worked out for the Algonquins of Golden Lake, but it cannot come at the expense of this province's long-standing resource management principles. Two days of public consultation for this issue are simply insufficient.

ROYAL VISIT

Ms S. Murdock: I rise today in total disbelief at the reprehensible reporting evidenced in Toronto's local tabloid. Balanced reporting? Yet when yesterday's

article came out, I said, "Fine; consider the source." What can you expect but irreverence and totally disgusting reporting?

But it has to be surprising to this reporter, if you can call her that, that the royal couple actually asked to come to my city. Yesterday I discounted much of this doggerel because I figured, well, it was done in ignorance. Today's

article shows that, first, this person could never have come to my city; otherwise she would know better. Second, my city is 100,000 people. It is hospitality plus. It is beautiful. I will admit that 25 years ago we could not have said that, but working together, Inco and everyone else have made it a wonderful place to live. She does not know what she is talking about.

Frankly, she is so tunnel-visioned that after today's article, the only thing that is obvious is that in her view only Toronto is good enough. The tabloid earns its reputation with this kind of reporting. I say: "Come to Sudbury. Meet our people. Share our hospitality." The royal couple will, but I can bet you, Ms Mandel, that you never will.

GOVERNMENT STRATEGIES

Mr Phillips: I want to say a few words today as to why I think the atmosphere of civility in the House has recently come under pressure.

It was only a little more than a year ago that the Premier, at the swearing-in ceremonies at Convocation Hall, announced that it was his government's task "to guard against institutional arrogance and the abuse of power." Yet, frankly, almost daily we see the government engaged in activities which seem to challenge the Premier's statement and to further aggravate the tone of debate in this House.

Examples of this would include the recent budget hearings where we in the opposition assumed that a fair representation of groups would come forward to provide public feedback on the budget. Unfortunately the Premier's office took it upon itself to very aggressively load the agenda with groups supporting the budget, ignoring the need to achieve a cross-section of opinion. Furthermore, the NDP members on the committee issued a press release headlined, "Committee Finds Widespread Support for Provincial Budget." This press release was issued before the committee had any opportunity to discuss the hearings.

The government has further contributed to the negative atmosphere by having the Premier here perhaps two days a week and by having virtually no ministerial statements. Who suffers as a result? Surely the opposition, but also, importantly, the NDP caucus and the public when the role of the Legislature is abrogated.

BREAST CANCER AWARENESS DAY

Mrs Marland: Today, October 10, is Breast Cancer Awareness Day. The purpose is to make people aware that early detection of breast cancer saves lives.

Breast cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths in women in Ontario. As women age, their chances of getting breast cancer increase. However, early detection of breast cancer has reduced the number of deaths in women aged 50 to 69 by as much as 40%.

Women aged 50 or older should contact their physicians or the Ontario breast screening program to arrange for breast screening, which includes an X-ray called a mammogram and a physical examination. A mammogram can detect breast cancer at its earliest stages, even before a lump can be felt.

In addition, women of all ages should do a breast self-examination every month. Regular self-examination enables women to detect breast changes in between checkups by their doctors or other breast screening centres. A doctor will demonstrate how to do a breast self-examination. As well, a brochure explaining the procedure is available from any office of the Canadian Cancer Society.

The Ontario breast screening program runs free breast screening centres in several cities across Ontario. For more information, please call the Cancer Information Service at 1-800-263-6750.

I encourage all women to discuss breast cancer detection with their physicians. Early detection could save your life.

I just came from attending the luncheon, with 1,600 people present, to celebrate Breast Cancer Awareness Day.

BUSINESS IN BRANTFORD

Mr B. Ward: In this House, we all know the tough times that Brantford has experienced in the past from an economic standpoint. I would like to bring to the members' attention some good news on the economic front.

Since September, a number of business people have made the decision to invest in Brantford. Examples are the construction of warehouse space for the rationalization of Lumsden Brothers Co; the decision of Go Vacations, a recreational vehicle manufacturer, to relocate all of its operation to Brantford; Ben-A-Clamp, a maker of automotive and industrial clamps, picking Brantford over the American states of New York, Oklahoma, Tennessee and even Mexico, and the plans of BASF Canada to invest $6 million for new equipment in its Brantford paint plant.

As well, Intercity made the decision to close a plant in Red Budd, Illinois, and maintain its Keeprite operations, and just last Friday I toured a plant that was purchased by local investors from an American company.

These decisions mean jobs for the people of Brantford. They mean that these business people have confidence in Brantford and Ontario. I am confident that this House will continue to hear of improvements on the economic front as our province continues on the road to economic renewal.

Hon Mr Cooke: I have met with the opposition House leaders and I believe we have unanimous consent for a statement to be made by the Minister of Housing, followed by statements from the Minister of Community and Social Services and the Premier.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous agreement?

Agreed to.

RENT REGULATION

Hon Ms Gigantes: I wish to inform the House about the investigation by Ontario's rent registrar of the rents in a building owned by the Minister of Community and Social Services.

As members will recall, on September 24 allegations were raised that illegal rents were being charged for the two units in this building located at 964 Avenue Road in Toronto. The rent registrar, David Braund, investigated these allegations under

section 11 of the Residential Rent Regulation Act. He has concluded that there is no basis for proceedings under

section 122 of the Residential Rent Regulation Act. I am not tabling the report in the House for two reasons.

First, the report the rent registrar has produced is a law enforcement record containing personal information that is protected under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Second, since September 24 a tenant has filed an application with rent review regarding one of the units in this building. The matter will be dealt with by a rent review administrator who will hear evidence from both the landlord and the tenant and then issue a decision. The decision can be appealed by either party to the Rent Review Hearings Board. If the opinion of the rent registrar were to be released at this time, it might be viewed as prejudicing the right of either the landlord or the tenant to fair hearings before the rent review administrator and the Rent Review Hearings Board.

Hon Ms Akande: As members know, there has been concern raised about rent levels at my property at 964 Avenue Road, Toronto. I am satisfied that the rents charged in the two apartment units are honest and proper. However, a tenant there has now initiated proceedings to have his rent reviewed. The rent review process is the appropriate forum in which to have this matter decided. This process will take some months to resolve. Therefore, I have decided to tender my resignation as Minister of Community and Social Services in order that the Legislature can focus on the many important issues facing the people it serves.

Hon Mr Rae: After discussing this matter with the Minister of Community and Social Services yesterday evening, I have decided, with enormous regret, to accept her resignation. I want everyone in this House to understand that I do this in order to allow the minister to be able to present a fair case before the rent review tribunal and because I have enormous respect for the minister and her sense that it would be better for everyone, including herself, if this was the way we proceeded. I say this without any prejudice with regard to the case that is now before the tribunal because of the action taken by one tenant.

When this matter has been dealt with fairly and squarely by the administrator, the member for St Andrew-St Patrick, as far as I am concerned, will be back in the cabinet.

If I might be permitted to say just a couple of things about the minister, her tenure as minister over the last year has been marked by progress of which we in the government are understandably proud. I hope members will allow me to point out just a couple of areas in which she has worked enormously hard on behalf of all the people of the province.

Shelter allowances were increased by 10% on January 1991. The $51 million in the capital works projects designed to get welfare recipients into the workforce created 62,000 individual weeks of work in communities with high unemployment rates. Through the Back on Track program of some $215 million, the minister's insistence at cabinet -- and I can assure members that no one has been a more effective advocate on behalf of the people of this province than the minister. Social assistance reform has included a $78-million program to get welfare recipients back to work.

She has taken responsibility as a minister for working together with the Minister of Health and the Minister of Citizenship to deal with the long-term care reform and make sure that stays on track. She has launched a review of the province's child care system and she has shared responsibility with others for the creation of 5,000 more subsidies for child care.

These are never easy moments of decision for a minister or a Premier. The minister has shown in the decision she has taken today, as in so many others to my knowledge and in my experience, enormous grace, enormous courage and a great sense of fairness to herself and to everyone. I hope it will be understood in that light by the members of the House.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

EXPO '98

Hon Mr North: I am very pleased to advise the House today that Mr Tom Wells, former agent general for Ontario in London, has agreed to lead the federal-provincial municipal team supporting the Toronto bid for Expo '98. Many members of the House are former colleagues of Mr Wells, who served in the Legislature as the member for Scarborough North for many years and was a cabinet minister in both the Robarts and Davis administrations.

Mr Wells will chair the Expo '98 Bid Corp, which will be incorporated soon. The bid corporation will have an advisory board which will include representatives from all four levels of government, business, labour, the local community and native groups. This group will ensure that, should our bid be successful, Expo '98 will be a unique and very exciting world's fair.

The bid for Expo '98 represents a tremendous opportunity to spur the economic renewal of this province. It will not only create jobs; it will inspire investment and growth across Ontario.

Mr Wells's first task will be to meet with a visiting delegation from the International Bureau of Exhibitions next week and begin the lobbying process we believe will lead to our successful bid.

I know all honourable members will join me in welcoming Mr Wells to this very important assignment and assure him of our full support.

RESPONSES EXPO '98

Mr H. O'Neil: We are very pleased to see an appointment such as this. Mr Wells had a very distinguished career while he was in this Legislature, and when he was transferred to the job in London, England, as the agent general, he again distinguished himself and did a great job promoting the province of Ontario. The position to which he has been appointed is a very important one, because the Toronto bid for Expo '98 could mean a great deal to this province, not only in the tourism sector but in the business sector as well, creating, as the minister mentioned, a lot of jobs and promoting the province right around the world.

I hope we are successful with it. With a person like Mr Wells leading it, I hope we are. In the meantime, having a person of his stature doing the job also means that over the next number of years w