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

October 26, 1989

34th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

URBAN GROWTH

URBAN GROWTH

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

AFTERNOON SITTING

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

AGRICULTURAL LAND

TERRY FOX RUNS

GOVERNMENT SERVICE IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

LOTTERY PROFITS

PASSENGER RAIL SERVICES

COMMUNITY COLLEGE TEACHERS’ LABOUR DISPUTE

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

THOMAS STELLING

ZIGMAS VAIŠVILA

MEMBER’S PRIVILEGES

THOMAS STELLING

ZIGMAS VAIŠVILA

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS / AGENTS DES SERVICES CORRECTIONNELS

PARENTAL LEAVE

CRIME PREVENTION WEEK

RESPONSES

CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS

PARENTAL LEAVE

CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS

ORAL QUESTIONS

CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JEWISH WOMEN OF CANADA

COMMUNITY COLLEGE TEACHERS’ LABOUR DISPUTE

CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS

TEMAGAMI DISTRICT RESOURCES

GOVERNMENT HIRING PRACTICES

TRANSIT SERVICES

NONPROFIT HOUSING

LONG-TERM CARE

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

RACE RELATIONS

AGRICULTURAL LAND

PASSENGER RAIL SERVICES

DEINSTITUTIONALIZATION

CHAIRMAN OF ONTARIO PLACE CORP

ALTERNATIVE FUELS

PETITIONS

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

WASTE DISPOSAL

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX ACT, 1989 (CONTINUED)

COMMERCIAL CONCENTRATION TAX ACT, 1989

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr Villeneuve moved resolution 29:

That in the opinion of this House, recognizing that the government of Ontario has failed Ontario’s agricultural sector by:

1. not providing a higher budgetary and program priority to agriculture;

2. not consulting with agricultural organizations prior to instituting major program changes;

3. having a dismal record of co-operation and consultation with the federal government;

4. providing no leadership within the government to promote alternative crop uses;

5. cancelling interest rate relief as interest rates have risen;

6. ignoring its own report concerning free trade;

7. failing to recognize in a timely manner the importance and implication of the current GATT round;

8. retreating from announced intentions to protect agricultural land, and

9. not having the policies and means to ensure a healthy industry for Ontario in the 1990s and beyond;

the government of Ontario should: provide a program to replace the Ontario family farm interest rate reduction while interest rates remain high; abandon the changes to the farm property tax rebate program at least until after consultations take place with the farming community; take a more active role on alternative crop uses, particularly in co-ordinating with other ministries, and establish a prebudgetary hearing process to better set agricultural spending priorities.

The Speaker: I am sure all members are familiar with standing order 94 setting out the procedure. I will recognize the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry for up to 10 minutes.

Mr Villeneuve: Agriculture is a very important part of this great province and probably one of the industries that has made this province great and economically more viable than probably any other part of this country and maybe even of this continent. But when it comes to agriculture and agricultural programs and budgeting, it is obvious that this provincial Liberal government here in Ontario has relegated both the minister and the Ministry of Agriculture and Food to the back burner with low priorities.

As real interest rates increase, the government has called down and then ended its interest rate relief program. It has scaled it down from 100 per cent to, this year, no support at all. It makes no sense, but that is what has happened.

While the Liberal government campaigned in 1987 by telling Ontario farmers that free trade would destroy agriculture, at the same time it created the Ontario Farm-Start program with great fanfare to help new, beginning farmers. That was clearly little consistency because, if indeed free trade was going to destroy agriculture, why bring in new people? No one quite understood that one, but it went ahead.

Nothing, of course, was done pertaining to free trade, although the anticipation during the 1987 election campaign, ladies and gentlemen, was that agriculture as we know it will disappear. It will totally disappear. Ontario Farm-Start was brought in as a 1987 election campaign promise and, lo and behold, funds lasted for less than six months. Now we have no program to assist beginning farmers and on it goes.

We have seen the Premier (Mr Peterson) and ministers talk of expanding trade with the rest of the world, a very, very noble gesture indeed. The Ministry of Agriculture and Food has a marketing and trade expansion program, which this party and I personally support very strongly. However, in spite of all this talk, the Premier, the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr Ramsay) and the Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) threaten to ignore the rulings of the GATT. That is interesting. We want to participate on a worldwide basis, but we will just disregard rulings of the GATT.

Does this government seriously expect to improve its trade relations with the rest of the world and, at the same time, threaten to ignore the rules of the game? That kind of behaviour is more suited to a spoiled child, a spoiled brat, than a responsible government. It is called playing crass politics, and it is sad but true.

Our party has supported the free trade agreement, although there were certain areas that we did not agree with and we said it. However, we never did say that we would overlook rulings and decisions by the GATT. We were not playing politics as the Premier and all of his elected officials and candidates played during the 1987 election campaign.

I would suggest a bit of crystal ball gazing; the same thing will happen in 1990 on the goods and services tax. I see it happening now. It served them well politically in the past and they are not about to turn around and turn over a new leaf. Instead, the Liberals succeeded in whipping farmers into a real frenzy over free trade with the real issues being totally ignored. It would seem that in recent years political expediency, rather than sound objectives, have come to dominate the agricultural policymaking of David Peterson’s Ontario.

I cite the elimination of the Ontario family farm interest rate reduction program, a program that was very welcome across the province of Ontario, a program that helped those farmers with high debt load reduce their interest rates to eight per cent. The same government is now undermining the farm tax rebate program by reducing the payouts to farmers from $167 million to $140 million, again playing crass politics without even consulting farmers or their organizations. Ontario Farm-Start, to all intents and purposes, exists no longer.

The budget of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food was chopped from $579 million to $522 million, or some $57 million less than had been budgeted for. If this is not crass political gamesmanship, then I do not know what is.

Anticipation has been built up to the point where they can never ever deliver and, indeed, they are not even trying to maintain what was in place prior to the 1985 and the 1987 elections.

I questioned the Minister of the Environment (Mr Bradley) yesterday regarding alternative fuel uses. We out in rural Ontario can produce the renewable resources to replace the octane enhancers in our fuel that are actually undermining and deteriorating our environment to a great degree.

I attended a conference last week called a Clean Air Conference, which somehow or other the Minister of the Environment never even heard about, because in his answer to me yesterday he said he was not ready to ban MMT because the alternatives were even worse.

I have some advice for the Minister of the Environment that does not come from me; it comes from people who have studied the subject to a great degree. I will provide some answers for him and I hope either that somewhere his colleagues will relay the information to him or that he is watching on his monitor somewhere because he is not here today.

Some 75 to 90 per cent of carbon monoxide in the atmosphere today is a direct result of car emissions. Carbon monoxide is not a very good product to have our public inhale, particularly in those areas with heavy concentrations of population and cars, such as we have in the greater Toronto area. We have 4.5 million people living within a very small area, and carbon monoxide is one of the major problems in our atmosphere here in the city of Toronto.

The only way to reduce carbon monoxide emissions is by using fuel ethanol. It is the only way not only to reduce carbon monoxide but to protect the ozone layer, a product that can be produced by our grain producers here in the province of Ontario. Grain corn can be distilled without affecting the food chain. We are simply squeezing two per cent by weight alcohol out of the starch in corn, which can then be used as the octane enhancer. It will reduce our dependency on the mega oil projects in western Canada, in eastern Canada and, indeed, across the world and will provide a cleaner environment.

This government has seen fit to reduce the support for agriculture very dramatically by $57 million over the last year and by almost the same amount the previous year. Now I can foresee an election coming and I know that there is a request out there for ideas, ideas from the farming community. The Minister of Agriculture and Food cannot have all of the confidence of the Premier because he has now been supported by two parliamentary assistants. I hope that they can provide some input.

Mr Wildman: Who are they?

Mr Villeneuve: They are very dedicated members of this assembly and I hope that they have some input, but I wonder, because whenever the farm tax rebate changes, the former minister, the man who made a lot of noise and did a lot of boasting, was not even consulted. It came from Mr Nixon that there would be changes to the farm tax rebate and Mr Nixon decreed that it would be a maximum of $40,000 of off-farm income. Of course, the Minister of Agriculture and Food agreed and danced to the music.

I am afraid that we are going to see a lot of this as time goes on, that the shots are being called in the corner office, the Premier’s office, the Treasurer’s office. The minister and his two parliamentary assistants will say yes, will say no and will say maybe at the whims of whatever the corner office tells them. I am afraid that agriculture is being relegated to a very low priority as is now seen with the actual dollars that are being withheld indeed after having been budgeted to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

Mr Speaker, I will keep the rest of my time to answer my colleagues.

The Speaker: I might just remind all members that when we refer to another member of this House, please do not use the surname. Please use the riding or the ministry.

I will now recognize the member for Cornwall.

Mr Cleary: I would like to begin by emphasizing that the Ministry of Agriculture and Food’s budget has increased significantly since this government has assumed office. For this current fiscal year, budget allocation has increased 65 per cent, that is, 35 per cent in real dollars, over the ministry budget of the previous government.

In addition, this government has introduced a number of new programs which have clearly assisted Ontario’s agriculture sector: to name only a few, Ontario Farm-Start, tripartite stabilization and Ontario soil conservation. These programs and many others have contributed to the competitiveness, protection, education and financial stability of the farmers in this province.

Clearly then, the growth in this ministry’s budget has slowed in the last year as an obvious reflection of the farm economy’s improvement. I would have to dispute with the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry reference of inadequate levels of consultation between the government of Ontario and the federal government.

Many of these shared issues have been discussed recently with the Minister of Agriculture and Food and Don Mazankowski. Some of the recent concerns were ice cream and yoghurt and crop insurance. There has also been much consultation with the former Minister of Agriculture and Food, the member for Huron (Mr Riddell), and the federal government over an issue I am sure the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry remembers quite well. These discussions concerned a municipal drain, the Payne Drain, right in his backyard quite close to the member’s home.

The former minister talked with the Conservative federal government which originally planned on equal sharing, one third federal, one third provincial and one third land owners. As a member from eastern Ontario concerned about the agriculture community, I had many meetings with the Minister of Agriculture and Food and he was very sympathetic to these farmers. This consultation resulted in the Ministry of Agriculture and Food not only paying its share but also paying the federal share in the amount of some $570,000.

I feel the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry must surely realize the means by which this government assists farmers on a day-to-day basis, especially when some of the things happen very close to his home.

After the election of 1985, it appeared that the former government in office had lost touch with agriculture. Frequently, the programs introduced at this time were mere rewrites of what already existed. Since the government of the day came to power, there has been a vision, a look towards the future. The present government initiated the OFFIRR program because it was fit for the times.

The OFFIRR program was introduced when interest rates were 19 per cent. The prime rate is now somewhat less, but then I am sure the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry is already aware of this information. I believe he had requested the information on the OFFIRR program here in the House on 21 June 1989. The member must realize the time has now come to move on to different initiatives in the farm finance area.

It seems incredible that the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry could be unaware of the major priority-setting process of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. This review will undertake ministry priorities in consultation with farmers, agribusiness, food processors and consumers.

May I share with the member the Ministry of Agriculture and Food’s Toward 2000, preparing for the future. In addition, a series of meetings with external groups will be held across this province. It is expected that some 400 people will provide input at these meetings.

May I take the opportunity to invite the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry to at least one of the two Toward 2000 consultation sessions which will be held in Alfred and Kemptville, very close to his home. It seems clear to me, as it should to the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, that the Ministry of Agriculture and Food has the means to ensure a healthy agricultural industry for Ontario in the 1990s. Not only do we have the outline I hold before him here; we have the assurance and capability of addressing the needs of the agrifood sector now and in the 1990s.

Mr Wildman: I rise to participate in this debate because I think it is a most important topic. I must say that I agree with some parts of the resolution, but have some difficulties with some of it as well. I will explain that in a moment. I think one of the major problems the farm community faces in Ontario today is the fact that both federal and provincial governments, both Tories and Liberals, have taken the farm community for granted and have not consulted with the farm community as they should have in developing programs to meet the needs of farmers, and have not responded to the problems that the agricultural community in Ontario, and for that matter in the country, is facing.

There are a couple of examples that were referred to by the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry to show lack of consultation by the provincial government. We have seen the discontinuance of OFFIRR -- the Ontario family farm interest rate reduction program -- and the changes in the farm tax rebate program that took place without consultation, despite what the member for Cornwall (Mr Cleary) had to say.

Frankly, I regret this, and I say that sincerely, but I think the downfall of the member for Huron was a result of the poor consultation or lack of consultation and the poor communication, particularly between the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and the ministry. I think that is one of the reasons he is no longer a member of the executive council.

Let’s not forget the fact that despite what the member for Cornwall had to say, we are still in a period of high interest rates. Certainly we are not at 19 per cent, but when members compare interest rates of 11 per cent, 12 per cent and 13 per cent with the current inflation rate, we are in the same situation. The difference between the interest rate and the inflation rate today is just as great as it was when we were at a 19 per cent interest rate.

In fact, as we see the development of the federal government’s policies, Tory policies in Ottawa are for a high interest rate approach to stemming inflation. When we see the implementation of the goods and services tax at the federal level and the inflationary pressures that will put on the economy of this country, despite what Mr Wilson says, the Bank of Canada is going to be tempted to increase interest rates even more.

No one can argue that OFFIRR was needed a few years ago but is no longer needed. The single major problem facing agriculture and farmers today is the credit crunch, the cost of financing their operations. Without a program that is going to lower interest rates and financing costs for farmers, the agricultural community in Ontario is in serious trouble, particularly when members consider that in other provinces those governments have instituted programs to help with farm financing. That puts Ontario farmers in a difficult competitive position, because this province has not continued the OFFIRR program.

Many people expected that the Liberal government would discontinue some of the programs that were in effect prior to their taking to power in 1985 because they were not their programs, but we also expected that when the Liberals did that, they would implement new programs, not discontinue them and not replace them with anything.

To argue, as the member for Cornwall just did, that a review of the government programs is somehow going to help farmers with financing is ridiculous. The farm tax rebate program, which was changed without even consulting with the Minister of Agriculture and Food, much less the agricultural community, is an example of this lack of consultation and the problems we face with it.

We have had the argument put forward in this House of the problems people who make $40,000 or more off the farm are going to have because they will not now be able to be eligible for the farm tax rebate. I am concerned about that, but I am even more concerned about those farmers who do not make that much money off the farm but who do rent a lot of land and what the effect of this change in the program is going to have on those people.

Obviously, in the past their neighbours, the property owners who are renting them the land, have counted the lease rate, the rental rate and the farm tax rebate as their income from their properties. Now that they are no longer eligible for the farm tax rebate, they are obviously going to increase the rental cost to the farmers. That is going to make it very difficult for a lot of farmers to continue farming the same acreage they now are farming because their rental rates are going to increase.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Food has argued that will not happen this year. Well, it will not happen this year simply because this program came in without any consultation, so nobody had any warning and the people who are renting the land could not increase their rates. They will next year and we are going to have a lot of agricultural land go out of production because farmers cannot afford to continue renting as much land.

In my view, the whole reason for this program was not to subsidize farmers in some way, but rather to encourage the continuation of the farming of land, an incentive to keep food land in agriculture. This government, without consultation, has removed that incentive to a large degree. I think that is an example of poor consultation and one that has to be changed.

This government has argued that it is in favour of improving land stewardship and agricultural methods and of having the land stewardship program. We know the land stewardship program is underfunded and oversubscribed. There are going to be fewer and fewer new applicants who are going to be able to get assistance.

In May, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food sent out 500 letters to applicants saying it could not give them any assistance under the program this year because the money was already spent. A lot of the applicants from this year are going to get money from next year’s program. The program runs out in August and we do not know if there is anything to replace it. Again, there has been no consultation with the agricultural community on what is coming on this except, I suppose, as the member for Cornwall referred to it, a review.

This government has retreated on the protection of food land. We have the Food Land Guidelines. We have not had any movement on ensuring that those guidelines are going to be put in municipal official plans, so they remain just guidelines, something that has to be referred to but something that is not enforceable.

We have farmers who have this credit crunch, who have these financial pressures facing them that are persuading many of them that perhaps it is better to get out of agriculture who are also under the pressure of the development industry, particularly in this part of the province. It becomes less and less likely that those farmers are going to be able to stave off the encroachment of urbanization into the farming areas.

I might say, though, that we have similar problems with the federal Tories. The member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry referred to the free trade agreement and the GATT. We all know the difficulties that free trade is presenting to the agricultural community. I will not go into that now, but let’s look at the GATT for a moment.

At the time the free trade agreement was proposed, the Conservatives argued that there would be a dispute settlement mechanism that would resolve problems in trade between the United States and Canada, but we now find that the new rules are all stacked against us because if the Americans cannot get what they want through the dispute settlement mechanism under the free trade agreement, they then go to GATT. The Americans have protection under GATT and we are stuck with rulings similar to the one that just came down on ice cream and yoghurt.

Obviously agriculture is threatened because the federal Tories have not taken into account the needs of agriculture, but the provincial Liberals are not in any way trying to counteract that. Neither of these two parties is consulting with the agricultural community as to what should be the best approach. I support the view that we should be moving to more alternative fuels and using ethanol to improve the market for things like that crop.

I will close by saying that if this government and the federal government really believe agriculture is important and should survive in Ontario, which is the major agricultural province in this country, then they must consult with the agricultural community in a serious way about how to develop programs that will meet the needs of agriculture in the modern situation, going into the 21st century.

In the past, this has not happened. The farm community has been disappointed by the lack of consultation and I think would be forgiven perhaps if the farmers said to both Liberals and Tories, “A plague on both your houses.”

Mr Pollock: I want to compliment the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry on his efforts to bring forth this resolution. It shows he is really concerned about agriculture, and his views of agriculture and the concerns of agriculture should be echoed in this House.

First, I want to share with the members some concerns I have about landfill sites going under prime agricultural land. I know of a particular municipality that was always considered an agricultural community and there are five landfill sites picked for that township. People are farming on every one of those landfills sites. Also, one of the criteria to get you off a landfill site designation is if you have water levels close to the top of the ground. All those sites have water levels close to the top of the ground.

There is also an ARDA map that says some of those sites are prime agricultural land, but the people in charge refer to some other particular map and they do not put any stock even in an ARDA map. It is a major concern to me. Some people prefer to put garbage in landfill sites rather than burn it, but there is no proof and over the next 50 or 100 years landfill sites might be as damaging to the environment as burning garbage.

I would also like to share with members a meeting I attended in Marmora last Saturday morning. The meeting was organized by a group which calls itself TNT. That stands for Take no Trash. There is a proposal out there to actually put Toronto’s garbage in the old Marmora iron ore mine. I am sure that will eventually pollute that whole area.

I would like to give members a little history of that old Marmora iron ore mine. When it was in operation back in 1978, there were pumps there running 24 hours a day trying to keep the water out of there. Also, they mentioned at the meeting Saturday morning that one fellow sank a shaft down there with an eight-inch drill, and when he pulled out that drill the water came in the full size of that eight-inch hole. Therefore, there is all kinds of water coming in there. There is now 350 feet of water in there.

They claim there is over a billion gallons of water in there and they feel that if they ever start dumping Toronto’s garbage in there, that will pollute the water levels of all that area around there and really affect the farm community. Water is as important as land to the farm community.

I would also like to mention my concerns over the farm tax rebate. The farm tax rebate is very confusing to our senior citizens. A senior citizen is eligible to claim not only the farm tax rebate but also the senior citizens rebate. To claim the senior citizens rebate, he can just claim that on his house and lot. Therefore, he has to get that figure from the municipality in which he lives. He then claims for his senior citizens rebate. Then he can claim on his farm tax rebate on the farm and the farm buildings if he is producing any farm materials.

It is very confusing for senior citizens. They do not understand it. It makes it even worse if they have two properties and those properties happen to be in different municipalities, or if one property is in the husband’s name and maybe the other property is in the wife’s and the husband’s name. As I say, it is very confusing for senior citizens.

I got a letter from a person very concerned about this farm tax rebate. He worked on a job and that job eventually got phased out. Anyway, he was allowed so much severance pay. You are supposed to put all your earnings, including severance pay, on line 150, which he did. This put him way over the benchmark figure of $40,000. This fellow has been farming in a cow-calf operation for two years. He is a full-time farmer but he is not going to get any farm tax rebate because he has to enter that figure on line 150. It is a major concern to him. It does not seem fair to me either. He does not even have to pay income tax on that amount, but he has to enter it on that line.

Mr South: Farmers are making too much money. Have to tax their wealth.

Mr Pollock: I would like to also share with the members my concerns about the loss of our exports in grain. I have a chart here that indicates our grain sales for 1987-88 and 1988-89. With the exception of two, our grain sales are way down. We were up slightly in grain sales last year, for 1988-89, on oats and canola, but on the other five grains -- wheat, barley, rye, flax seed and corn -- we were way down. In fact, in corn we were down from 370,000 tons to 20,000 tons and that crop is primarily grown here in Ontario.

We are losing a lot of these export markets. This is a real concern to me and I am sure it is a real concern to the rest of the country because when you lose these markets, it takes a long time to actually get them back, if you ever get them back. Some other country takes it over. As I say, that is a major concern to me.

I might say that I also read in Maclean’s magazine -- I am getting back on the subject of garbage and the care of the land -- an

article that stated that in Canada there are 270,000 tons of diapers going into landfill sites every year. It also mentioned that every 14 seconds one hectare of land in the world -- we lose one hectare of arable land. Our track record here in Ontario is no better than any other place in the world, even with all our technology and expertise.

These are some of the things that I wanted to share with you, Mr Speaker, and with the House. It is a major concern to me. Once again, I compliment the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry on his efforts to bring forth this resolution.

Mr McGuigan: I want to join my colleague the member for Cornwall in this debate. I find it rather strange that the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry suggests we have a dismal record of co-operation with the federal government. After all, it is his colleagues who have made every effort to claw back so many programs from rural Ontario. They are going to take back fuel tax rebates. Rural post offices are closing. We have Via Rail shutting down. We have a promise for no more drought payments, regardless of the weather.

Mr Villeneuve: You want to talk about drought payments, Jimmy? We will talk about drought payments.

Interjections.

Mr McGuigan: That is their promise. They are going to take back portions or all of the $300-million federal dairy subsidy and they are bringing about the end of the free cash advances on stored grain. These are just a few of the things that his federal friends are taking back.

If we seem to be at odds with the federal government, it is because it is that Tory government that brought free trade down on to this country, and this is despite our very strong opposition. That Tory government has not had the same interest that this Liberal government has had in protecting the Ontario farmer from international trading practices. I guess we do find it difficult to co-operate with them on these assaults.

You cannot disguise the fact that it was the federal Tories who made the 1988 drought payment promises. The Treasurer of this province will not, and the member would be the first to criticize him if he gave a blank cheque to other governments for their federal election promises.

However, I do think it is important for the member to know that earlier this month, the Minister of Agriculture and Food met with his federal counterpart, the Honourable Don Mazankowski. The minister made clear Ontario’s concern in some important areas, including crop insurance and the GATT panel ruling on ice cream and yoghurt. As well, an accord on soil and water was signed.

There are very many co-operative agreements that we have achieved in consultation with the federal government, but if the member thinks we should knuckle under on the free trade issue or that we should give in on the crop insurance question, I am afraid that is not what the farmer of Ontario would want, and we are going to consult with the farmer of Ontario.

I remind the member that it is this government that has offered tripartite funding on crop insurance. We are alone in this, but we are sticking with it because we see it as a better deal for the farmer, and it will not happen unless the federal government agrees. Those are the member’s partners.

This said, I should add that following the minister’s meeting with Mr Mazankowski, a great relationship was struck up. The ministers are holding regular telephone conversations and have agreed to meet again in the very near future.

I guess it is sad to hear the member’s comments that the government of Ontario has ignored its assessment of the impacts of the Canada-US free trade agreement on the Ontario agrifood sector. I would like to inform the member that the government has taken numerous measures to ensure that any losses to Ontario farmers and food processors as a result of free trade with the US are minimized and the benefits maximized.

In this regard, the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food has been working with the Ontario food processing industry to develop and design measures that will ensure the long-term viability of food processing in the province.

Mr Villeneuve: That is why you shut down the Chatham plant.

Mr McGuigan: We have not shut down any plants.

We are committed to the revitalization of the Ontario grape industry through the Ontario grape and wine adjustment programs.

We support strongly the Ontario dairy and poultry industries in their bid to ensure that the strength of Canadian supply-management systems is not weakened by US competition.

I heard the member saying that we should abide by outside rulings. OMAF is providing direct input into the negotiations on technical standards to ensure that Canada’s quality grading regulations and high standards for plant, animal and human health are not undermined. I would remind the member that our standards are the highest in the world.

We have a group examining the present status of the vegetable processing industry with a view to enhancing its long-term competitiveness.

The member will want to know that consultations continue with the Ontario agrifood sector on the implementation of the FTA, most notably on the current negotiations to accelerate the reductions of specified tariffs on bilateral trade.

This government continues to actively represent the best interests of the Ontario agriculture and food sector in all agricultural trade disputes with the USA. For example, in response to the recent imposition of US countervail duties on Canadian pork, the government of Ontario will be making representation, along with the federal government, under

article 19 of the FTA, to defend the trade policy interests of Canadian and Ontario hog producers and pork producers.

The government of Ontario opposes the FTA but we realize its existence cannot be ignored. We remain committed to ensuring that Canada-US bilateral trade regulations evolve to the benefit of Ontario farmers and food processors.

The Liberal ministers of agriculture and food have been consistent in their efforts to ensure that the federal government fulfils its responsibility. Ministry officials are directly involved in ongoing consultation on the implementation of the FTA and will continue to monitor trade developments with the USA.

The member has raised the question of alternative crops. Since being appointed to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, I have raised this issue with the minister. He has agreed to allow me the opportunity to work in this area to expand on some ideas of his and mine for the north and all over the province.

I have some firsthand experience at developing and growing alternative crops. The Cedar Springs Cherry Growers Co-operative, Blenheim, of which I was a founding member and for several years president, began for the purpose of processing sour cherries and has since expanded to process and ship fresh peppers.

Omstead Foods in Wheatley started as a fish processor and has expanded to include many fruit, vegetable and cheese products. Many Essex-Kent growers supply cauliflower and Spanish onions to this market and a great deal of this production is shipped to the United States. Look around south Essex to see the agriculture producers who are now producing nursery stock. Go to Norfolk county to see the alternative crops now grown by former tobacco growers.

The Ontario crop introduction and expansion program has now been in operation four and a half years. The ministry, under this government, has been actively developing export markets. We are experimenting with new crops, but this is not enough. We must have the markets for those crops and we are working in that regard. We have an excellent record in this area.

I am surprised that the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry would suggest that this government has not protected agricultural lands. The Food Land Guidelines are in effect and they are working. In fact, I am surprised because I had remembered listening to the member discussing severances with the Minister of Agriculture and Food in the House before. I went to Hansard, 11 April 1988. Sure enough, we find the member suggesting that the guidelines should be breached.

The member supports application for severances on agricultural land and he supports the right to farm. Those are positions that do not sleep in the same bed.

Mr Villeneuve: On marginal land, of course. That is common sense.

Mr McGuigan: But it is not saving agricultural land and that is the matter he is criticizing of us.

Mr Villeneuve: Let’s bring a little common sense to it.

Mr McGuigan: If you had any common sense, you would have used this time period to bring forth an issue, and there are many, many issues out there in agriculture that need addressing. Instead of bringing forth a want of confidence motion and using this as a political exercise, you could have looked upon all those areas that are affecting agriculture: the European Community, the American 1985 Farm Act.

Mr Callahan: Interfering with the integrity of private members’ hour, that is what you are doing.

Mr McGuigan: That is right. You could look at assaults we are having on our food system.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Cureatz): Order, please. I hate to interrupt the member’s time, with so few seconds left, but we are getting into debate across the floor. I appreciate your directing your comments to the chair.

Mr McGuigan: As always, Mr Speaker, we kneel to your very wise counsel.

I just want to wind up by saying that I think we have missed today a good opportunity to advance some program that would help the Ontario farm community. There are many areas where the member could have picked out specific things. He could have picked out alternate fuels as one of them.

Mr Villeneuve: What do you think I was talking about?

Mr McGuigan: The member mentioned it, but we did not have a chance to debate it.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member’s time has run out.

Mr Hampton: Mr Speaker, thank you for the time, finally, to speak. I thought for a minute that the member for Essex-Kent (Mr McGuigan) was going to give us a history of agriculture in Essex-Kent. I will thank him for one thing. He mentioned that what we should do in this hour is describe or talk about some of the things this government should do or should have done already, since it has been here for four years. I will use the time remaining to me just to talk about some of those things.

I want to re-emphasize what my colleague the member for Algoma (Mr Wildman) has already stated, that the situation out there now in terms of interest rates, and the comparison of the interest rate with the inflation rate, is as severe now as it was in 1982 and 1983. One can talk to any farmer, particularly farmers who are in the beef industry, to find out just how serious that situation is. Yet what has this government done? Away with the OFFIRR program; away with it without consultation, and away with it without recognizing the economic need for the program. That is an idea. It is still not too late for the government to reflect on its past error and do something about it.

My colleague has already mentioned the farm tax rebate program, again done without consultation. Let’s face it, no matter how members add it up, no matter how they cook the books, this is strictly a take from farmers. There is nothing reciprocal going back; it is simply a take. If I can perhaps paraphrase what the government member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr South) said, which he would not stand and say but which he said as a comment, it is the government’s view that farmers already make too much money. That is the only conclusion members can draw from what the government has done to the farm tax rebate.

Mr South: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The member did not say it is government policy.

Mr Wildman: He just said it was your policy.

Mr Hampton: I stand corrected. One of the government members feels that farmers already make too much money. The farm property tax rebate program and what has been done to it is strictly and clearly a take from farmers with nothing reciprocal returned.

Let’s just look at a few of the other programs. Ideas, the member says. Let’s look at the red meat program. It is true, the red meat program was introduced by the former government. We can understand how this Liberal government might want to call it the green meat program or the blue meat program or the blue ribbon meat program or something. They might want to call it the red tie program. We do not really care, but when they changed the name, why did they have to screw up the program?

Go talk to any beef farmer out there and he will tell you that the program that was there two years ago was much superior to the program that is there now. Why did they have to mess up the program? Go ahead, change the name so that it becomes recognized as a Liberal program, but do not put the screws to beef farmers in the process.

Just a couple of other ideas, okay? They reflect agricultural concerns in my part of the province. If you go to northern Ontario, which is increasingly becoming a beef-producing area and a milk-producing area for the province, you will find that there is a real problem with predator control. It is not unusual for a beef farmer, a dairy farmer or a sheep farmer to lose several head of stock a year to predators. Try to interest the Ministry of Agriculture and Food of this government in predator control and see how far you get; you are shown the door immediately. They are just not interested.

Farmers can show you loss after loss after loss, and this government simply is not interested, either through the Ministry of Agriculture and Food or through the Ministry of Natural Resources, in talking about predator control. They do not want to even listen to the subject for one second.

The member for Cornwall mentioned that this government is operating on the frontier, looking to the next century in terms of agriculture. If it were, one of the things it would be interested in would be fish farming, a viable way, in northern Ontario especially, to diversify the local economy. Instead, this government says, “We don’t think it’s feasible.” I will tell the members something: The Norwegians and the Swedes have looked at the government’s feasibility study and they are saying “Nyet” to its feasibility study. They are going to do it.

They will do it where this government has failed, and that is an example of some of the areas this government could move on and has failed to move on, and why there are a lot of farmers out there who are not happy with the government.

Mr McLean: I want to divide the time among myself, the member for Wellington (Mr J. M. Johnson) and our critic.

It gives me a great deal of pleasure to have this opportunity to say a few words in support of this resolution from my colleague the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry. As a dairy farmer in Oro township, I know full well that this government has failed the people of Ontario in regard to the farm sector. The member for Essex-Kent had indicated that we should spend our time talking about some of the issues. I am sure that is exactly what we have been talking about.

We have been trying to bring the issues before the government, where it has failed the people of Ontario, the farmers of Ontario. We see this government’s failure to provide a higher budgetary program priority to agriculture. We see the government’s failure to engage in direct consultation with agricultural organizations prior to instituting major program cutbacks. The government fails to provide leadership in promoting alternate crop uses. This government cancels interest rate relief at a time when interest rates have risen. This government reneges on its intention to protect agricultural land.

This government decides to alter the farm tax rebate program without consultation of any kind. It also failed to provide a replacement for the OFFIRR program. I simply cannot understand how we can expect farmers to stay in business when this government has such a dismal and shameful record with respect to farmers of Ontario.

I know of beef farmers who have gone out of business. The wife is a schoolteacher, trying to make money to pay off the debts they have accumulated. They no longer qualify for a farm tax rebate with regard to their taxes. I think it is a shame that the government would institute a program such as it has. I know of many young farmers who want to take over their fathers’ farms. That father will be in a position where that farm will no longer get a tax rebate even though it is a full-time farm in operation on a continual basis.

The attitude of this government with regard to consultation with the public is awful. They consulted with regard to Bill 19. They consulted with regard to Bill 113. The people were definitely opposed to what the government was doing, and yet it went ahead and instituted both of those programs. When the member for Essex-Kent gets up and says, “We should have spent this time more wisely,” I have to say that it is about time that somebody in this province spoke up for the farmers and the people who feed us. It is shame that these members are in here today indicating to us that they have done just that. They have failed us badly.

Mr J. M. Johnson: I would like to commend the member’s resolution and, in the two minutes I have left, just highlight that the Liberal government promised open, consultative government and give an example.

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture recommended in its report to the Ontario Treasury, 16 March 1989, that no changes be made in the farm tax program without consultation with farm organizations. The government went ahead and made changes. I would like to read into the record a few comments by the president of the OFA, Brigid Pyke.

The headlines in the Guelph Daily Mercury of 12 October read: “Farm Rebate Changes Are ‘Bastardization,’ Claims Pyke.” Mr Speaker, I hope you will allow that comment, because it is a quote.

“Changes to the Ontario farm tax rebate program constitute ‘a bastardization of the principles that underlie that rebate,’ says Ontario Federation of Agriculture President Brigid Pyke.

“Pyke, speaking to Wellington Federation of Agriculture members Wednesday night at Wellington Place” -- Fergus -- “said the provincial government’s changes to the farm tax rebate system seem rational ‘at first blush,’ but once their full effect is known the changes could be devastating for farmers.

“Since off-farm income is today necessary to keep a farm operating, penalizing that income is a ‘bastardization’ of the principles used to found farm tax rebates, said Pyke.

“Ontario Treasurer Robert Nixon maintains the changes are designed to keep people like his colleague Attorney General Ian Scott, who owns farm land, from collecting the rebates.”

I am sorry if the Treasurer has a problem with his Attorney General, but he should not penalize the farmers.

This is symbolic of this government’s “open, consultative process,” and I condemn it.

Mr Villeneuve: In summarizing, I want to thank all of those who participated: my Liberal colleagues the member for Cornwall and the member for Essex-Kent; certainly the official opposition members, the member for Algoma and the member for Rainy River (Mr Hampton); and certainly my colleagues who support this, the member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr Pollock), the member for Wellington and the member for Simcoe East (Mr McLean).

If we do not have unanimous support for this resolution, we have the Liberal members endorsing a $57-million cut in the agricultural budget that happened last year. They are giving their blessing to that, and the two parliamentary assistants got up and spoke about it. They are giving their blessing to continuing the reduction that started two years ago -- $57 million last year -- of money that was scheduled for agriculture but went elsewhere. They are giving their blessing to farm tax rebate reductions, a means test on the farm tax rebate and policing -- policing, if you will -- the income that people make to try to earn a living, trying to make ends meet on the farm.

They are giving their blessing to that. They are giving their blessing to a number of things I think are outrageous, cancelling the interest-rate relief program, which was initiated by this government as a political ploy before the 1985 election, and yes, it has reduced it.

I appreciate that there is a background paper circulating for the year 2000. It says that the government will consult. The government should try to take a page out of its own book and do it. The former Minister of Agriculture and Food, the member for Huron, said that he did not consult. He spoke to them at breakfast after the decision was made on changing the farm tax rebate program.

If the government goes against this resolution, it is ignoring its own report on free trade. The members of the government are certainly the people who benefited politically very, very extensively from fighting the free trade deal and then doing very, very little about it. The government is not even recognizing that there are GATT decisions that must be addressed by this government, so if it does not support this resolution, it is giving the approval to putting agriculture right off the map.

URBAN GROWTH

Mr M. C. Ray moved resolution 27:

That, in the opinion of this House, a select committee on urban growth should be established to examine and report on urban growth patterns in Ontario and to recommend a long-range provincial policy on urban growth. The select committee should consider: (1) variations in urban growth patterns in Ontario; (2) causes of this variation in urban growth patterns; (3) economic, financial, social and environmental consequences of such patterns; (4) short-range and long-range policy options available to the government, and (5) legislative, institutional and program changes required to implement an Ontario government policy on urban growth.

Mr M. C. Ray: In recent years, those of us from outside south central Ontario, the Golden Horseshoe, have marvelled at its growth and development and the evolution of Toronto as a cosmopolitan, dynamic and, some have called it, world-class city. We have envied the greater Toronto region its wealth, its role at the centre of the Canadian economy and its employment opportunities through its commercial and industrial expansion.

Indeed, there are some among us who are disturbed or even angered by the success of this metropolitan region of Toronto as we witness our children leaving smaller cities and towns of Ontario in search of jobs that cannot be found at home, in slower-growth areas of northern, eastern and western Ontario, areas which have not experienced the kind of economic expansion, even during the boom times of the last seven years.

We are distressed as we witness the relocation of our own factories and offices to the greater Toronto area, or as we hear and share the complaints from western Canada that growth in this greater Toronto area has been so phenomenal it has distorted even the whole of the Canadian economy and has caused higher interest rates in markets which do not require them, higher interest rates which make it impossible for our children to afford the purchase of their own homes.

We are disturbed as we witness boarded-up schools and even homes and underutilized municipal infrastructures.

We are also disturbed as we hear Torontonians themselves complain about real estate values inflated by demand and speculative profits; about a housing crisis which renders it impossible for even the middle-class working people to afford their own homes -- indeed, about the lack of available housing and the lack of affordable rents; about transportation gridlock as Metro slowly grinds itself to a stop; about a school system which cannot build schools fast enough, notwithstanding a $1-billion school construction program of this government; about a health care system which cannot keep pace with the demand for hospital services.

We ask ourselves, as Metro residents must ask, does it make sense to be closing down schools in other areas of Ontario while installing portable classrooms in Toronto?

Does it make sense to be leaving industrial park land vacant and dormant in many areas of eastern, western and northern Ontario while grossly inflated prices on a comparative basis are paid for scarce land in Mississauga, North York and Markham? Does it make sense to be depopulating beautiful cities and towns across this province where the quality of life is high but the jobs are few?

And we ask, why is this concentration of commercial, industrial expansion occurring in only a few cities, simultaneous with the abandonment of nongrowth areas? How inter-related are these trends? More important, can anything be done about them?

Are we to leave our economic and social development to market forces? Have we not already conceded victory to market forces? Have urban renewal projects not won the day? And do we not see the overconcentration of population where development has overburdened municipal and provincial infrastructure?

Does this gridlock and stressed society not depend on the urbanization of adjoining rural areas for its expansion? Do we really want to see the same intrusion into our farm lands? Were not zoning bylaws and official plans introduced to control and manage change to counter market forces?

In Ontario, was not the design for development program introduced in 1966 intended to provide long-range planning for all regions of Ontario? How did some Ontario communities go astray? What long-range planning has been done in this province since the design for development program and the introduction of regional government in the 1970s?

Can we find reassurance from this present government? Project X, the leaked government document which the government denies is policy and is entitled Reforming Our Land Use and Development System, is a great deal more than a process document, a plan to streamline the land use approvals process.

Indeed, when one views the magnitude of development in the south-central Ontario area, one would hardly suspect there was difficulty in obtaining land use approvals. Nevertheless, Project X speaks of paralysis in decision-making, regulatory gridlock, as it seeks to minimize provincial intervention in local planning decisions and it warns, and I quote, “A strong government commitment will be required to demonstrate the benefits of reform to those concerned about weakening of the province’s environmental or planning standards.”

Project X is a dangerous document, particularly in its implications for that part of Ontario outside the greater Toronto area. It seeks to promote increased economic and population expansion of this greater Toronto area, which is already overburdened. Furthermore, it indicates implementing reform with little public consultation.

I ask, can periodic ministerial declarations of provincial interest or periodic issuance of ministerial policy statements substitute for comprehensive, long-range planning or are they ad hoc, piecemeal, reactive initiatives?

Look to recent history. Is not the announcement, two weeks ago, of a provincial freeze on development of the eastern portion of the Toronto waterfront a demonstration of the urgent need for the restoration of comprehensive planning? Is not the delegation of provincial review of the western portion of the Toronto waterfront to the federal royal commissioner, David Crombie, a demonstration of ad hoc, reactive dike-plugging which proves the need for comprehensive urban-regional land use planning?

Are the recent creations of the interprovincial railway task force and the Treasury office for the greater Toronto area comprehensive long-range planning or piecemeal reactions to crisis situations?

I believe the Ontario Legislature has a role to play in the re-establishment of long-term planning of the growth of this province and I believe the establishment of a select committee on urban growth will assist in this process. I believe legislators should examine urban growth patterns, how urban planning has been done in the past, the applicability of the principles we have developed, how other political jurisdictions and cities have planned, what international planning experts have to say.

What about our own experts and ordinary people and what they have to say about the factors causing or influencing urban growth or nongrowth, about the consequences and implications of urban growth and nongrowth -- the transportation implications, the recreational open-space requirements and, of course, the impacts upon the environment?

We need to know the options available to us, and I believe a select committee on urban growth could undertake a nonpartisan study in which all parties can participate, to hear the concerns of experts and ordinary people, to provide a forum for public input, to assist the government in formulating urban development policy, infrastructure planning and program design and delivery. I am hopeful that the need for a select committee on urban growth is apparent to all members and that they will support this resolution.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Cureatz): I would like to thank the honourable member for Windsor-Walkerville and remind him that he has time for the conclusion of his remarks.

Mr Breaugh: I am pleased to support the resolution this morning.

I think it is a matter that is of growing concern to a number of people in municipal government and others who have begun to realize that the many attempts in Ontario to plan the growth of the province have not been successful.

There are those in this chamber who, like me, have been participants over the years in talking about a Toronto-centred region, in talking about regional government, in talking about a Toronto area transit operating authority, in seeing some of the framework that is necessary being established, some of it being developed. But I think even the most biased person would have to say that our attempt to plan successfully the development of Ontario has been an abominable failure. It has not succeeded in directing growth where we, the people of Ontario, get the most benefit from it.

It has done nothing, for example, in addressing the very real problems of northern Ontario. It has done nothing in addressing the very real problems of eastern Ontario nor of southwestern Ontario. So the bulk of this province has emerged willy-nilly almost.

There are some inherent problems in the process that I would like to discuss a little bit this morning, and I would be anxious in fact that a select committee of the Legislature do what has not been done around here for some time.

When I was first a member here, the order of the day, quite frankly, was to strike a select committee on a matter that was of concern to the province, to give that committee some latitude, some strength to see other jurisdictions, to stay in operation for some considerable period of time and to report regularly to the Legislature. It is a process which I know to many people seems strange, and members were criticized because they did go to other jurisdictions.

I want to take one example of a select committee that I think has had an impact on Ontario, and it is still happening. When I was first a member, many of us served on a select committee on highway safety. We had an opportunity to see how other nations, other provinces and other states did things, to see how they attacked a very real problem of safety on the highway, to see the kind of sophisticated techniques that were unknown in Ontario at the time, to make suggestions and recommendations to the assembly of Ontario on some very practical things that could be done; and we did those.

To this day, you will still see pieces of legislation being brought forward by this government, more than a decade after the committee made its final recommendations, that had their beginning back in that select committee.

I believe the select committee process, if it is given a little scope and a little bit of imagination, can serve this House well. I think the method the member has suggested is an extremely useful tool, but you have to recognize that a select committee does not work well if you say, “We want you to think about urban growth and report back here in three weeks.” That is silliness. It does not work well if you say: “We want you to think about how the world has attempted to grow and develop its urban centres, but we do not want you to go see any of those places. We do not want you to talk to those people.

We want you to go sit in a room here and argue about it for four or five weeks and then report.”

If there is a commitment on the part of the government of Ontario to take the select committee process and let it work, let it do its job and recognize the scope of it, then we have a hope here that this concept in the resolution before us this morning would serve us well.

Now let me try to make my version of the argument as to why it is necessary. In and around Toronto, the place where most of us are perhaps more familiar with urban growth problems than anywhere else, you see growth in an urban sense strangling the population as a whole. Those are kind of harsh words, but I believe them to be true. If there is not a solution found for something as basic as garbage disposal in this community in the next couple of years, you are going to have to pile it on your front lawns, folks, because there is no place else for it to go.

If there is no solution for the transportation problems that have emerged in and around the Toronto region in the last decade, people might just as well take their brand-new Chevrolet and park it on the road because it is not going to go anywhere. As I came in this morning, that is what we did. Once again, as we do every day, we put our vehicles on a transportation system that is overloaded from day one, operating at well over 100 per cent of its estimated capacity so it has no chance to survive.

One could argue that there is the framework of an intercity rail system, but as quickly as we see GO Transit developing into something that might actually function, we see another level of government tearing apart the same thing and then both of them arguing as to who ought to operate the rail system. The end result is nobody will. So somebody has to kind of understand that problem.

As you move around Ontario, one of the things that is unfortunate, and that I hope a select committee would address, is that though some members may not be aware of it, Ontario does not consist entirely of Metropolitan Toronto. There are other places here. There are other places in the province of Ontario where growth and development could be handled in a more sane and rational manner, but it is tough.

You cannot get to Peterborough until you have a transportation network that gets you there smoothly and efficiently. If you have gone up Highways 35 and 115 on a holiday weekend in the summer, you know that it looks very much like the Don Valley Parkway every morning. If there is an accident on a two-lane highway, it stops. When you go across northern Ontario and you see that phenomenon called the Trans-Canada Highway -- there are two-lane blacktops in Alabama that are better built than the Trans-Canada Highway. That surely is a disgrace.

You go through all of southwestern Ontario and you see the great potential that is there for growth and development and you see that it is struggling to kind of get a foothold. The municipalities are trying their best with the resources that they have to attract new industry, to rationally develop growth, to provide affordable housing, but it is a tough task for them and I would say an impossible task for the municipalities to do on their own.

You can come into my part of the country, eastern Ontario, and you can see some communities that have grown sanely, rationally, providing good housing, and that have a bit of a commercial and industrial base to their community, but it is not easy. A lot of what we are seeing is in one sense good and in one sense bad.

Let me give an example of the Goodyear move into my home town, Napanee. I can see a lot of good reasons why a corporation that owns a plot of land in the hottest real estate market in the world would like to sell the land -- and that is what it did -- and would like to move to a place where the federal, provincial and municipal governments will fall all over themselves to give it grants and exemptions and build roads and do all kinds of things. The end result is that the company comes up with world-class technology in a brand-new plant in a labour market that is pretty stable.

So they have the best of all worlds, but did we plan that? “Kind of, sort of” is about the best you could do for that. Maybe. Maybe some of the growth you see in places like Belleville and Trenton is planned, thoughtful growth; but if it is successful, it’s more likely to be in spite of the federal government and the provincial government rather than with their co-operation.

If you ask people, “Is there a plan for Ontario?” the province, for example, says to each of its municipalities, “We want to see your official plan. We want to see your growth estimates for the next five years. We want to see your financial forecast for the next five years. We want to know all of these things about you.”

Would it not be nifty if each of our municipalities could come to Queen’s Park and say: “Fine. Here’s our official plan. Where’s yours? Where is the official plan for the province? Where is your forecast for the next five years in economic development? Where is your plan to solve the great crises of the day?”

This government would probably stand up in the House and say, “We have this thing called the greater Toronto area.” Where did this come from? From a private meeting in the Premier’s office. Is there a legislative framework for the greater Toronto area? No. Is there an agenda to resolve the garbage crisis? It depends on whom you talk to. What is that resolution? No one knows. People are going back to the regional councils around Metro with ideas now, but they are ideas on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. What are the councils saying? “Leave it. If we’re not part of the decision-making process, don’t come to us with some solution and jam it down our throats.” That is going to be the problem.

If you believe in planning, as I do, if you believe in some rational way to grow and develop as an urban entity, you have to admit that you cannot do that in private. You cannot do it in private meetings with developers. You cannot do it in private meetings among the politicians. You have to acknowledge that.

If we wanted to split off a parcel of land that we own for our son or our daughter to have a house, or if we wanted to rezone a little piece of property to put up a grocery store, we would go to our municipality and find out there is a need to have public notice and public hearings and public staff reports and public debate on whether that is a good idea or a bad idea. The same rules that apply to every farmer, every small business person and everybody who wants to build a tool shack on a conservation area piece of property ought to apply to the growth and development of the urban centres of Ontario as a whole.

In all of what I have tried to do in political life, there is a common theme, and that theme is expressed in this resolution. If we want a better society, if we ever hope to have a Lake Ontario that is not polluted with toxic chemicals, if we ever hope to have a sensible solution to a crisis in something like garbage, we have to stop and think our way through and plan the process and identify the factors that cause these problems.

After we have thought our way through that, then we have to express that in something like an official plan. Once we have gone through that thinking, caring, thoughtful analysis of what our problems are and what our solutions might be, we do not have to adhere to them in a fanatical way but use that as the direction post. That is the way we are going. That is how we are going to resolve that.

If you drive anywhere around any of our urban centres in Ontario, you can take some consolation in this. Compared to other jurisdictions, we are not awful -- particularly some that I have seen in the United States, for example, where planning is nonexistent. Most of our municipalities at least do not dump raw effluent into a local stream or river of their own volition, but it does happen here and we do have problems.

At the heart of all these problems is probably what is contained in this resolution. We need to stop and think about what causes growth, what growth means for our province -- not just for Toronto but for everybody else in Ontario -- and what are our priorities. I hope that is what this resolution will make us do. I think the format that is suggested in the resolution is a reasonable, proven technique that this House has used many times on many different matters. I support the member for bringing forward the resolution this morning, and I noted that in his remarks he was not falling all over the government.

I want to conclude with this brief thought: For each of us in here, if we did what the member for Windsor-Walkerville has done this morning, this would be a better place. If we set aside our partisan colours from time to time and said, “Here is an idea that my government, the government I belong to, hasn’t really addressed and it ought to,” members would be surprised at the amount of support that would come from all over this chamber for a good idea that will stand on its own no matter what party or what member might present it.

Mr J. M. Johnson: I will start by saying that I intend to support the resolution presented by the member for Windsor-Walkerville, and I will even go a step further and state that at the present time I am offering to serve on the select committee on urban growth. I can be the first candidate.

It is very appropriate that this resolution should be debated the same day as the member’s resolution from the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry expressing his concern about farm land agriculture uses in this province. The two are interchangeable, and the growth of urban municipalities impacts dramatically on farm land, so we have to equate the two together. Any study in urban growth must take into account that impact.

Paragraph 3 of the resolution states that we should study the economic, financial, social and environmental consequences of such patterns. That is one area that should be studied in relation to the impact on agricultural land.

Four years ago, on Thursday 28 November 1985, I introduced a private members’ resolution, and I would like to read that into the record now:

“That in the opinion of this House, recognizing the very serious limitations placed on our smaller rural municipalities in their ability to attract industrial growth, the government of Ontario should develop and implement an industrial strategy that would provide these municipalities with the much-needed expertise and financial resources necessary to enhance their position in this competitive field.”

I went on to say:

“For Ontario’s economy to strengthen and for a better distribution of the newly created wealth throughout the province, it only makes sense that development be encouraged in the smaller rural communities in this province.”

I submit that this resolution is very similar in nature and content to the resolution presented by the member for Windsor-Walkerville. It is four years since my resolution was passed, and there has been some movement in direction by this government. I would like to highlight just one example. That is a decision by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food to transfer its office to the city of Guelph. It will mean a transfer of approximately 1,000 jobs to Guelph, which is in Wellington county and basically in the heartland of rural Ontario.

It is only reasonable and sensible that the Ministry of Agriculture and Food should be located in such an area, and I commend the government for that initiative and hope it will continue in that thrust.

I would like to bring to the attention of this House an

article that appeared in the Guelph Daily Mercury just a few days ago. It is overall rural population. I will quote this.

“Canada’s farm population continues to fall, but there has not been a similar exodus from rural communities, says an agriculture department spokesman.

“The population of small towns has remained stable -- about one quarter of the Canadian population....

“Towns and villages also owe their strength to Canadians’ willingness to commute long distances to work and the success of larger farms. And many farm people move into a nearby town for their retirement....

“Statistics Canada figures show the farm population has declined about three per cent a year throughout the past two decades. That means the farm population has gone from about 1.9 million in the late 1960s to less than half that 20 years later.”

These communities have not declined in population, but they have received growth from retiring people and people who contributed to the residential sector of the communities, but there is not enough commercial and industrial assessment to maintain the financial viability of these municipalities. They do need added growth; they need growth in the industrial and commercial sectors and, hopefully, that is what the resolution presented by the member for Windsor-Walkerville would take into consideration.

In his comments, he mentioned his concern for those growth patterns and I fully support that proposal. I think it would make a lot of eminently good common sense if the government were to establish such a select committee, an all-party committee composed of members who have interest in both rural and urban municipalities so they can give consideration to both aspects of the problem. We should always take into account the need to preserve our farm land and, as the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr Villeneuve) mentioned this morning, if we preserve our farmers we will not have too much problem preserving our farm land, but the two are intertwined.

Since our party is allowed only 15 minutes in this debate and there are two other members of my party who wish to speak, the member for Durham East (Mr Cureatz) and the member for Simcoe East (Mr McLean), I will accede to them at this time, with the hope that the member for Windsor-Walkerville, when he is commissioned by the Premier (Mr Peterson) to set up this committee, will give very serious consideration to appointing me to that committee.

Mr Tatham: I support the private member’s resolution from the member for Windsor-Walkerville. Josh Billings said it: “It is better to know nothing than to know what ain’t so.” We can cast our minds back to the 19th century and recall comments made by that brilliant parliamentarian John Bright, who spoke in Birmingham on 22 January 1876 about the land question.

He said that five million acres of land in Scotland, over one fourth of the whole of Scotland, were in the possession of 21 persons. After further calculation, he said that in point of fact, one proprietor in Scotland held nearly as much land as three million of its population.

What are the facts in Ontario today? Let’s look ahead to 1992 and SuperEurope. Andrew Clark says the amazing changes east and west could lead to a linking of two dozen European nations with half a billion people, enormous assets -- and liabilities. The prospect goes far beyond the 12-nation economic union of 1992. It offers the rest of the world vast new challenges and opportunities.

Clark backs up his suggestion by describing the visit of Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev to the steelworkers in Dortmund, West Germany. Gorbachev ascended the dais, hands clenched overhead, to be met with a deafening roar of welcome from workers chanting, “Gorby, Gorby.” Let us recall that during what the Soviet historians term the great patriotic war, 20 million of their countrymen perished at the hands of Hitler’s armies.

Are we getting ready for 1992 and beyond?

Let’s go back to Smith’s Canadian Gazetteer, 1846: Markham, a township in the Home District, had 11 grist mills and 24 sawmills; its population in 1842 was 5,698; ratable property in the township was valued at 286,577 pounds.

The Statute Labour Act, RSO 1927,

chapter 239, states that “councils of cities, towns, villages and townships may pass bylaws for levying and collecting an annual tax to be known as a poll tax of not less than $1 and not more than $5 from every male inhabitant.” Then it lists the qualifications.

Early this spring I parked in a no-parking zone in front of my apartment. The parking lot was under repair. Fifteen minutes later, my worldly goods were reduced by $40. Times change.

Almost 20 years ago, Barry Commoner wrote that the increase in per capita travel was at least in part related to the increased work-residence travel. At that time, Commoner said, “About 90 per cent of all automobile trips are 10 miles or less in length. This class of trip represents about 30 per cent of total automobile travellers.”

That brings me to our county government in Ontario review. We found that many people living in the rural areas now often travel to the urban areas for employment and recreation. For example, according to the 1981 census information, in Elgin county almost 60 per cent of the labour force actually worked in one municipality and lived in another. In Peterborough county, 75 per cent of the labour force crossed municipal boundaries to work.

My next-door neighbour in Woodstock leaves at 5:45 am every working day to drive to work at the Toronto-Lester B. Pearson International Airport. People move from Toronto to Kitchener, still working in Toronto. Kitchener workers are finding housing in Plattsville in the riding of Oxford.

This is the way things are happening at the present time. So are we asking the right questions? As Dr Samuel Johnson said, “It focuses a man’s mind marvellously when he is to be hanged in the morning.” Those who face a direct threat today are most willing to change in order to survive tomorrow. Do we not have to question the impact of 1992? Do we not have to question the gridlock at rush-hour in our Metro areas?

Sony chairman Akio Morita, who wrote in the New York Times, said American companies should shift their time horizons. The short-term orientation of corporate management in the United States encourages neglect of long-term investment vital to industry. The financial community in the United States seem to concentrate on 10-minute time frames.

The state of Illinois developed a document called Illinois: The Future -- 1980. There it is there. If you are a storekeeper, say, a hardware man, usually once a year you take inventory. How many bolts, drills, taps, dies, files, cap screws, nails, gloves? It is vital to your survival in business to know what stock you have. The late Lyndon Baines Johnson said the best manure a farmer could have on his property is his own footsteps, to be able to see, to be able to recognize what he has.

We keep talking about a global economy and it is happening. To appreciate the difference between the old international approach and the new global approach, look at the way firms such as Ford Motor Co, IBM, Matsushita Electric Industrial Co and the Procter and Gamble Co now operate. These companies design and develop their products wherever the required skills are most plentiful. They buy raw materials and component wherever they are the cheapest. They assemble finished products wherever they can achieve maximum economies and scale. And they sell everywhere.

If we are going to compete in the global marketplace, we have to outproduce our competition on cost, project a quality image and deliver a quality product. We have to build quality communities and I believe supporting this resolution will help show the way.

Mr Wildman: I have very little time. I just want to sincerely congratulate the member for Windsor-Walkerville for introducing this resolution for discussion this morning.

I wish there were some member of the Liberal government present -- there are none -- to hear the debate, because I think it is important for us to really question whether this government is challenging market forces or is prepared to deal with the question of urbanization and urban concentration, what I consider to be the Manhattanization of Toronto, the question of the need to provide affordable housing, transportation, dealing with waste, drugs and prostitution, homelessness, all of these problems that go with tremendous urban growth, uncontrolled growth, dependent on market forces.

As the member said, we continue to have a piecemeal, reactive approach. We even have discussion of deregulation and Project X at time when we should be moving in the other direction. We need planning. We need to have a concentrated effort to decentralize and to have development in places like northern Ontario. We cannot leave it to market forces. We need the government to become directly involved in planning and direct investment. I congratulate the member for bringing this matter before the House.

Mr Cureatz: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to have the opportunity of standing this morning, albeit for only a few moments, to speak to the member’s resolution.

I might add that in my dual role now, both serving as the Chair and as a private member. I have, as I indicated, toned down my enthusiasm on various aspects, because if one takes the Chair’s job seriously, I feel it is difficult to try to get the respect of all honourable members one hour and the next hour stand in one’s place and berate the government for all the things that are going wrong. That is not to say I will not do it from time to time; I will just be a little more cautious and judicious.

I said to myself when I saw this resolution, “Self, how can I go wrong with this one?” because I am sure everyone is going to be supporting it and I want to make sure I have the opportunity of doing the same for my colleague the member for Windsor-Walkerville, who, I might add, did, as we all know, an admirable job when he served as Deputy Speaker in the chair. Of course, it was of no particular circumstance that, suddenly, he was removed from that position; it was only because of the rule changes that were implemented over the session. So I wanted, on behalf of myself and my caucus, to thank him personally for his participation, serving as a member of administrating procedures of the House.

Turning to the resolution for a few moments. Interestingly enough, this goes to the heart and core of the matter. I really appreciated the comments of the member for Oshawa (Mr Breaugh), who gave, I think we all agree, a beautiful overview of the overall problem in terms of what is happening in Ontario and his supportive actions in terms of striking such a committee, of which I might add I am fully supportive.

I think this would be a great opportunity for us not to get particularly partisan in terms of what this kind of committee can do when, first, doing the kinds of investigations right here at Queen’s Park, secondly, travelling in Ontario, and yes, thirdly -- why not? -- travelling around the world in terms of what is happening in other jurisdictions.

Unlike the member for Oshawa, I want to get a little more particular and talk about the greater Toronto area. Right this very morning there is a meeting taking place at the Thunderbird golf course, which I think is just outside of my riding. I was invited to participate, to listen to some of the ideas that will be taking place about how this GTA is going to be implemented. Due to my new position and my participation in the debate this morning, I very regrettably had to indicate that I would not be in attendance, but at least it was the first sign of someone trying to get something together so we can talk about what is taking place around this Golden Horseshoe area.

We in opposition and, I suspect, many members in the back benches who represent a good part of that community -- even the member for Peterborough (Mr Adams) – remain relatively in the dark about what the overall strategy is in terms of garbage disposal, in terms of transportation, both rail and vehicle, and in terms of generation of power.

I have in my riding the Darlington nuclear generating station. I have just had the opportunity of speaking with the new chairman of the select committee on energy. We suspect the energy committee will be sitting in the winter to take a look at what Ontario Hydro will be proposing for the production of new electricity and where it is going to be putting a plant, if that is part of the proposal. Some have been talking about Darlington B. Maybe that is not the place for it after all in terms of what we are discussing here in this resolution.

What about Wesleyville, which is just down the road from me, in the riding of the member for Northumberland (Mrs Fawcett), who is here this morning? I am very disappointed that since Wesleyville was closed down, which I think was about 1978, I do not think a thing has been done with that property. We have hundreds of acres held by Ontario Hydro and what are they going to be doing with it? These are the kinds of things this committee could examine.

Right this moment in my own riding, St Marys Cement Corp is investigating the possibility of expansion in a larger harbour so that it could facilitate the various ships that are coming in for the carriage of limestone. There, of course, are protest groups and I have been hearing from both sides on the matter. This is the kind of thing that could help resolve those kinds of controversies.

I was very surprised and pleased, actually, to hear the Premier indicate the freeze of the waterfront from Bowmanville, which is in my riding, I think all the way around to Burlington.

How does that affect Ontario Hydro and the possibility of construction of Darlington B? How does that affect what St Marys Cement is proposing? These are the kinds of hard-core issues that I think cross political boundaries. We have got to get to what we are concerned about, and it is becoming evident every day as we all drive up and down Highway 401 -- you have to drive somewhere on it to get here to Queen’s Park; or even by train -- that we are getting quagmired in a situation that has to be resolved in a nonpartisan way. I could continue on at great length. I want to leave a bit of time to my colleagues.

That is not to say that we do not have those problems indicated by the member for Oshawa, agreed with by the member for Windsor-Walkerville, and existing in other parts of Ontario. The committee would also be able to investigate those kinds of situations.

I once again applaud the member for Windsor-Walkerville. I only suggest to all of the members -- as cynical as I am from time to time, I will just show a little bit of my colours from the old days -- that maybe this is just a trial balloon by the government and our honourable member is in cahoots with one of the ministers or the Office of the Premier, saying: “Let’s try this. If it works, then we are going to go for it.”

Even if it is a trial balloon, it is a great idea and we should be doing it.

Mr Adams: I too, like the previous speakers, would like to thank the member for Windsor-Walkerville for bringing this important matter to the attention of the House. He clearly brings to it his experience as an alderman in the city of Windsor and also his experience as a member of the committee on county government reform which addressed aspects of this problem.

I am interested in the topic, in part because it relates very closely to my own resolution of 19 January of this year. It seems to me that, arguably, urban development is the most important development problem facing our society today. In both the developed world and the Third World, increasingly people live in cities. In fact, it is not untrue to say that virtually all of us are urban people. We breathe urban air, most of us, whether we like it or not, and we drink urban water. Many people think, by the way, that it is better than rural water. We rarely walk, but we use various urban transportation systems. We all live in cities.

In ancient times, people thought of themselves as living in city-states. In fact, they actually did. They lived in cities which usually had quite small hinterlands which served the city and the city served the hinterland. Occasionally, like the great city of Rome, that small city had a huge hinterland which in fact was a great empire. We do not think of ourselves as living in city-states today, but in actual fact in many ways, much like the ancient Romans and Greeks, we do.

If you think of the great cities of New York, Boston and Washington and their hinterlands, both their immediate hinterlands and the entire continent, or if you think of the city of Tokyo today, they are city-states. Here today in the Legislature we are in Metropolitan Toronto; in many ways it is a city-state.

This particular city-state has a commuting hinterland which is the greater Toronto area plus some and then plus some. Also, it has a much larger hinterland than that, which is southern Ontario, the rest of Ontario, the Great Lakes basin, North America, however far one cares to go. So in many ways we are living in a city-state and we are talking about urban development. As we all live here, we are not, generally speaking -- at least not on this side of the House -- stupid people; we choose to live in urban areas.

We choose to live in urban areas because of the benefits there. We choose to live in urban areas because there are fulfilling and well-paid jobs in those areas. There are great educational opportunities in those areas. There are great recreational opportunities in urban areas. In fact, there is a tremendous quality of life in urban areas, and that is why 80 per cent or more of the population of Canada chooses to live in urban areas.

Cities, at their best, are highly efficient, pleasant, exciting places to live in. We owe a great deal to our cities in terms of the standard of living that we have. But, like weeds, cities tend to grow and grow and grow and spread and spread and spread. The population of the greater Toronto area is growing by 100,000 people a year. That is almost two cities of Peterborough a year. Some people say that housing construction is moving more quickly than the traffic. With this increasing size, and in particular with rapidly increasing size, come the problems that have been described by some of the previous speakers.

Travel problems, problems of overcrowding, problems of affordable housing, pollution problems, social stress and so on all combine to make these urban areas less efficient, less pleasant, less healthy places to live. The advantages of the cities, from the point of view of their own citizens, begin to disappear when cities grow too large or too quickly. This is what is being discussed by the member for Windsor-Walkerville.

I would like to point out that these things do not happen in isolation. The growth of Metropolitan Toronto is not simply something that affects the people of Metro. The growth of Metro has enormous impacts on the surrounding region, defined however one likes to define it. It has enormous impacts on the entire province. This growth impacts on our environment. Land is swallowed up which could be better used as farm land; the use of farm land becomes distorted because of speculation; environmentally important areas like wetlands and woodlands are jeopardized by the influence of city growth.

I would argue that problems which the member for Windsor-Walkerville described as problems of urban development bring together all the important problems of development in our society under one heading and that is why this resolution is so important. The growth of Metro affects our use of forests in northern Ontario. It stimulates activity in remote mines. It makes huge demands on resources we could use elsewhere. It affects other cities, other towns, other villages in the province. It affects the rural areas of the province. So it is not simply a matter for Metro. Urban growth is not simply a matter for urban people; it is a matter for the entire province.

I do believe that we as a province must have strategies for urban growth. Without them, we cannot control our future and help determine the type of Ontario we would like to leave for our children. I commend the member for Windsor-Walkerville for bringing this important matter to our attention.

Mr McLean: I want to speak briefly with regard to the resolution from the member for Windsor-Walkerville. With regard to the long-range provincial policy on urban growth or to have a select committee, I must indicate that it would be appropriate to have a short-range urban growth study also.

I see the Premier has appointed the area chairmen around Metro to look into the aspects of garbage disposal. I wonder if they are going to look into other aspects of the urban highways around Metro. There are many things within this resolution that the member for Windsor-Walkerville has indicated should be looked at.

However -- and I agree with the resolution that they should be looked at -- but the problem I see is that they are not being looked at soon enough. When we look at a long-range policy of urban growth -- and this morning we discussed the resolution from the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry with regards to agriculture -- these two resolutions fit very well together when we are looking at the whole aspects of urban growth into rural areas. When we are looking at roads for the future, garbage problems, plus the environmental problems that we have in this province, I think those should be short-term ideas that the government should be taking a very strong initiative on.

When we look at rural Ontario and how the expansion has taken place in most of the communities across this province with regard to growth, then our environmental aspect of that growth is going to be the most important with regard to the Ministry of the Environment. Funding capital projects, funding sewers, funding water, that area is one of the most important and it is one they should be looking at in a short-term view, not a long-term policy.

I commend the member for Windsor-Walkerville for bringing this resolution forward. I will be supporting it and I would hope that the government would see fit to bring in a short-term policy for many of our environmental and urban areas’ aspects.

Mr Kozyra: In the brief time available to me, I would like to also support the member for Windsor-Walkerville in his call for a select committee on urban growth, and focus on northern Ontario. Recent population projections have indicated growth in Ontario for the next 20 years of roughly 30 to 40 per cent. Only one region in the province, northern Ontario, would suffer a decline. That is of great concern to us.

Specifically, what we call outmigration in the north points to an even more serious problem than just a decline or stagnation in growth. That is the fact that the ratio of those leaving is 10 to one in the age group of 16 to 25. This creates a serious disproportion in what is happening to the age situation. The consequences are obvious. I recently attended a Red Cross seminar on this and, in terms of volunteer workers, it is predicted that northern communities will suffer tremendously as the aged increase and that base underneath them, the younger people, will not be there to serve in a volunteer capacity.

What are the implications on the political side? These are the very serious ones. At the present time, Metropolitan Toronto has about 40 members to five for the entire north, which occupies 90 per cent of the area. If this growth continues, the one-to-eight ratio now -- one northerner to eight members in the rest of the province -- will decrease to one to 13; a 50 per cent decrease in political influence.

The Speaker: The member for Windsor-Walkerville may wish to use up the final two minutes.

Mr M. C. Ray: I appreciate the comments of members of all parties in support of this resolution. I would like to acknowledge the participation of the research staff of the legislative library who have provided the two-page outline of possible specific issues that a committee on urban growth could examine.

I do hope that something can come of this resolution because I believe this government needs to be shaken in a couple of directions. This document which I have great fear of, Project X, needs some outside examination. I do not like some of what I see there and I do not think most members would if they read the document completely. I also think there is a role for this Legislature and its committee structure in long-range planning for this province.

I think a select committee on urban growth would have only beneficial effects and help to restore the role of this Legislature and draw us a bit away from Premier’s councils and outside administrative initiatives to determine long-range policy in this province. We, as legislators, have a function here and we can contribute to that process as well, calling outside experts into the Legislature here to state their views and have their views studied. I think there is at this time and place a need for that in Ontario and I would appreciate if all would support this resolution, even after it is passed.

URBAN GROWTH

The Speaker: Mr M. C. Ray has moved resolution 27.

Motion agreed to.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

The House divided on Mr Villeneuve’s resolution, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Allen, Breaugh, Bryden, Charlton, Cooke, D. S., Cousens, Cunningham, Cureatz, Eves, Grier, Johnson, J. M., Laughren, Marland, Martel, McLean, Philip, E., Pollock, Pouliot, Villeneuve, Wildman.

Nays

Adams, Ballinger, Callahan, Cleary, Cooke, D. R., Cordiano, Curling, Eakins, Faubert, Fawcett, Ferraro, Fulton, Henderson, Hošek, Keyes, Kozyra, LeBourdais, Lipsett, Mahoney, Mancini, McGuigan, Miclash, Miller, Nicholas, Nixon, J. B., O’Neill, Y., Oddie Munro, Owen, Pelissero, Polsinelli, Poole, Ray, M. C., Reycraft, Roberts, Smith, E. J., Sola, Sullivan, Tatham, Velshi.

Ayes 20; nays 39.

The House recessed at 1210.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

AGRICULTURAL LAND

Mr Villeneuve: This statement is addressed to Ontario’s Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr Ramsay). Ontario’s farmers are greatly concerned about the disappearance of prime agricultural farm land. Experts now believe there is an impending crisis here in Ontario.

There are a number of important facts we must remember when discussing this very important issue. It takes one acre of land to feed one person in Ontario for one year. There is currently just enough prime agricultural land in the province to feed our population of nine million. If production is shifted to lower-quality land in the northern parts of the province, the input costs would be twice as much as the production costs in the more central parts of Ontario. Between 1976 and 1981, approximately 50 per cent of land converted to urban use was prime agricultural land, and I emphasize “prime.”

The agricultural industry in Ontario contributes $5.6 billion to the economy and 26 per cent of the value of agricultural receipts of the economy of the entire country. We already import $3.6 billion worth of food for our citizens. We have had to draft Foodland Ontario preservation policy statements for almost four years now. The last Minister of Agriculture and Food said he would not bring it forward until the Farm Practices Protection Act was passed. The act is now in place. I am calling on the new Minister of Agriculture and Food to live up to his commitments and to preserve our prime farm land.

TERRY FOX RUNS

Mr Adams: I participated in two Terry Fox runs again this year in Havelock and Peterborough. It hardly seems nine years since I, like many others in the Peterborough area, had the privilege of meeting with and talking to Terry Fox. When I asked him why he was running through southern Ontario instead of taking the direct route from the Atlantic to the Pacific, he said quite openly that his primary purpose was to raise money for cancer research, not to break some sort of across-country record. Terry would be delighted to see the thriving plants which have grown from the seeds he planted.

In the tiny village of Havelock, one of many which Terry visited on his run, one young man who has participated in Terry Fox runs since he was a boy, raised over $4,000 this year on his own. He and others like him in our region took great pleasure again this fall in raising money for a good cause by running, jogging or walking for cancer research.

What a healthful way to raise money. What a pleasant way to make a public commitment to a cause. Every Canadian should try to visit the Terry Fox memorial on the Trans-Canada Highway near Thunder Bay. They should stand at that spot and say, “If Terry could run here from the east coast with one artificial leg and enjoy it as he did, I can participate in next year’s Terry Fox runs.” Cancer is being beaten.

GOVERNMENT SERVICE IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr Hampton: Yesterday the Minister for Northern Development (Mr Fontaine) announced another program of the government which he said would forward and assist business in northern Ontario. In my reply to his statement, I indicated that so far, so good.

I want to point out to the government, though, some of the obstacles which business people in northern Ontario have to face because of this government. This example I have today is particularly instructive. If you are a credit union, a bank or any other financial institution, or just a business or an ordinary consumer, and you want to purchase goods from someone else, it is always wise to call the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations and do a Personal Property Security Act search. It is always a wise thing to do.

But if you live in northern Ontario and you call the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, you may not be answered. You may face a line busy for most of the day or, when you get through, you may be put on hold for 40 minutes. I want to ask the government, in the kindest way I can, how can business in northern Ontario be forwarded, how can it progress, when such a basic act as this, such a basic, daily undertaking, cannot be completed because of government delay?

LOTTERY PROFITS

Mr McLean: My statement is directed to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr Black). He is no doubt aware that the standing committee on general government met for about three weeks here at Queen’s Park and in Ottawa, to consider Bill 119,

An Act to amend the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act.

Numerous individuals and groups, like the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and the Rural Ontario Municipal Association, voiced their opposition to this legislation that will see lottery funds diverted to the consolidated revenue fund. They stressed that a healthy lifestyle helps to reduce sickness and disease, and that reduces the strain on Ontario’s health care system.

I think that the minister will agree that physical fitness is the cornerstone of a healthy lifestyle and that the promotion of a healthy lifestyle should be an important element in his ministry’s strategy to reduce the incidence of preventable disease and illness among the people of Ontario.

When the minister and his colleagues were first elected to govern, there were promises of no walls and no barriers, but I think we can all see that plenty of walls and barriers have been erected by his government. We saw it happen with Bill 113,

An Act to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act, and it appears to have happened again with Bill 119.

In both cases there was little, if any, public support for the legislation, in both cases there were no amendments, and in the case of Bill 119, he failed in his responsibilities as minister in that he did not appear before the government committee to speak out against this legislation that will divert lottery funds from recreational purposes. The minister has not been supporting his own recreational groups.

PASSENGER RAIL SERVICES

Mr Tatham: From time to time one sees acts of kindness that raise the spirit. The other evening going home on the train, I watched as two young people helped an older citizen who had difficulty communicating, who also had lost his ticket and was having trouble with his baggage. So I thought I should write a letter. I wrote a letter to Ron Lawless, the president of Via Rail. I said:

“Dear Mr Lawless,

“I want to commend the young lady and gentleman who were looking after the passenger on Via train 659 from Toronto to London on October 10th.

“I appreciate the kindness shown by these young employees to an elderly passenger who was rather confused and was having difficulty with his ticket, luggage and where to get off the train.

“I observed the gracious activities of your officials as they helped this elderly man on his journey.

“Well done.”

COMMUNITY COLLEGE TEACHERS’ LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr R. F. Johnston: As all members, who have no doubt been called by constituents a lot in the last number of days since the community colleges’ strike began, will know, nothing seems to be happening, no movement seems to be taking place in what is a very serious situation potentially for 100,000 students in this province in the coming weeks.

It is important to put this in a context, which is what I want to do today. The minister has said that in fact his increases have been meeting the inflationary demands and that the number of students has not increased greatly. These things are only partially true.

I think it is important to note that since 1978-79, the increase in the percentage of grants to each college per student has been around 57 per cent. In the same period of time, the consumer index has risen by 83.9 per cent. This caused an enormous problem in the colleges, so much so that as many as 18 of the 22 colleges looked like they were facing a deficit in 1988. This is the real backdrop to the strike which is on at the moment.

There is a real need for the government itself to involve itself at this stage to help in a couple of the areas in terms of job security and sick leave and the remuneration question, so that this strike can be ended as quickly as possible and the lives of these students will not be unnecessarily jeopardized, as may be the case.

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

Mrs Cunningham: In those halcyon days of Ontario Liberalism back in 1985, long before scandals and resignations had taken the bloom off the rose and out of the cheeks of those new, eager cabinet ministers, the Premier (Mr Peterson) promised the people a government of compassion and competence. Today, that kinder, gentler, better-managed future continues to elude the grasp of this government and we are all frustrated.

Our jails are almost as overcrowded as our schools. Cancer and heart patients are dying for treatment in our world-class health care system and are forced to leave the province and sometimes the country, to obtain adequate care. Our courts are clogged up, the rent review system backed up, our roads jammed up, our taxes way up and the public generally fed up. We do not have enough nurses, teachers or community health workers, but we do seem to have more than enough labour unrest in the public sector, with college teachers, JPs and prison guards either on strike, working to rule or in a slowdown.

That is life in David Peterson’s Ontario. As long as you do not get sick, want an education, have to drive on the roads, and above all do not pay taxes, you might not mind living here. However, those who do not like living with the shortages, the backlogs, the gridlock and the waiting lists, who do not like a second-rate government for their tax dollars, may find life in David Peterson’s Ontario a bit too taxing.

THOMAS STELLING

Mr J. B. Nixon: I rise on a matter that I think will be of concern to all members in the Legislature today. I rise to pay tribute to Thomas Stelling, our Sergeant at Arms.

Tom, as he is affectionately known to all of us, has served over 25 years in the Legislature. He began his career a long time ago as a clerk-messenger and in 1976 graduated to his present position as Sergeant at Arms.

He has performed his duties with intelligence, discipline and hard work but, more important, Mr Speaker, I believe he has assisted you and through you this entire House with his civility, self-control and good humour. I am told by his staff that Tom’s humour has taken a decidedly curious turn in the last little while, perhaps as a result of his long-term association with the House.

He carries the mace as a symbol of authority and the sword as a symbol of justice and, although he has never had to use them, I certainly hope in the future that he never does have the need to use them on any of us, although I am sure be has been sorely tempted.

I wish Mr Stelling well for his 25 years of service and hope he spends another 25 years in this House with all of us.

The Speaker: I have two things I would like to do if I may. First, I would like introduce a guest and second, I would like to make a ruling that has been requested of me.

ZIGMAS VAIŠVILA

The Speaker: I would like to ask all members of the assembly to recognize in the Speaker’s gallery a deputy in the Congress of People’s Deputies in the USSR and deputy in the Republic of Lithuania’s Supreme Soviet, Zigmas Vaišvila. Please welcome our guest.

The next item will just be a little longer. I hope you will bear with me.

MEMBER’S PRIVILEGES

The Speaker: On Thursday last, the honourable member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr Pollock) rose to bring a question of privilege to my attention.

The honourable member stated that upon receiving a complaint from a constituent about a program put forward by Ontario Hydro, he had passed on the complaint to the minister. The matter had then been referred to Ontario Hydro by the minister and the chairman and president of Ontario Hydro had then answered the honourable member directly. Finally, that same letter appeared in two local newspapers in the “Letters to the Editor”

section approximately two weeks later.

The honourable member is complaining that his privileges have been abused because someone in the ministry caused those letters to be published and the name of his constituent appears in the letter, thereby having an embarrassing effect on the person who complained to the member in the first place. As well, the member feels this may have a restraining effect in the future upon his constituents who might fear that their names would be published in local newspapers if they seek redress from their MPP.

Before I rule on this matter, I would like first of all to recommend to members that in the future, as has been our practice, they give the Speaker at least one hour’s notice of a proposed question of privilege, unless the matter that is being complained about is something that arises out of the proceedings of the House and in that case, the question of privilege should be presented immediately. Also, it is incumbent on members to present their case fully to the Speaker in the chamber and it is not satisfactory to present written submissions. The reason for this is to give other members the chance to participate if that is their wish.

As far as the case presented to the House by the honourable member last Thursday is concerned, I well understand the member’s concerns. In his presentation, he quoted Erskine May’s 20th edition at page 167 as follows:

“...the special position of a person providing information to a member for the exercise of his parliamentary duties has been regarded by the courts as enjoying qualified privilege at law.”

What the honourable member forgot to quote was the beginning of the sentence, which reads as follows:

“But while it appears unlikely that any question of an actual or constructive breach of parliamentary privilege could arise in these cases....”

This full quotation implies two things: first, that the breach complained about does not constitute a question of privilege and second, that the relationship between a member and his or her constituent is a special one to the point where members in a court of law have been able to use the defence that their communication with constituents was privileged.

In the present case, I cannot identify who gave the letters to the newspapers and have no intention of pursuing the matter, but I do want to emphasize the dual responsibility made clear by this case. First, the public service should treat matters dealing with constituents with the utmost discretion. Second, it might be useful if members ascertain from their constituents whether or not they wish the matter to remain confidential.

In order to emphasize this, I would like to quote the Right Honourable Winston Churchill, from 9 March 1954 in Westminster, who said:

“The matter cannot be dealt with by a general rule against disclosure. But clearly departments must exercise great discretion as to the circumstances in which disclosure is appropriate; and a reminder is being issued to departments in this sense.

“If I might make a practical suggestion, honourable members might also consider on occasion asking their correspondent, in the case of a letter on which they are contemplating an inquiry from the government, whether he is willing that it should be disclosed to a wider circle.”

Therefore, I thank the honourable member for bringing the matter to the attention of the House, but I must find that there is no prima facie case of privilege.

Mr Pollock: Mr Speaker, do I have an opportunity to comment?

The Speaker: Order. No, you do not and you do not have a chance to appeal it either.

Hon Mr Ward: I would seek the unanimous consent of the House for formal recognition of a long-time servant of this Legislature.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

THOMAS STELLING

The Speaker: Not the Treasurer again.

Hon R. F. Nixon: Ah, yes, it is one of those days again, gentlemen and ladies.

I would like to join with the honourable member for York Mills (Mr J. B. Nixon) in expressing our appreciation to Thomas Stelling for his 25 years of service to this House, a good part of that time as the Sergeant at Arms. Somebody has said that he has been responsible for turfing more people out of this place than the electorate. I am not sure I want to agree with the other Nixon, when he said that he hopes he does not have to use his sword in the future, because sometimes I have in mind some people who might get pierced.

Actually, I have been subjected to the tender ministrations of the Sergeant at Arms. On one black day when the Speaker had thought that I was overvociferous in my objections to the government’s undertaking time allocation, if members can imagine, the honourable Speaker of the day named me. Naturally, I was ready to do what I was told, but even before I could leave through the doors, the sergeant had come to assist me.

So that the story is complete and since there is no time limit on this discussion, I think perhaps I should tell the House, which would be interested in this, that a few minutes later the House, by its vote, reversed that decision and I and a couple of other worthies were ushered back into the House. I really forget the circumstances in detail, but yes, that was the time it happened, however unjust and however temporary. Thomas Stelling did his duty on that day, as he always does, with fairness, equanimity, justice for all and dispatch. I know we have counted on him to do that for all these years.

During one period of his tenure the responsibility for the general safeguarding of ourselves as members and the security of this House in general was put on his shoulders, and this is a special responsibility that I think has been carried out with a good deal of sensitivity and finesse. At least we are still here, not bloodied but somewhat bowed. In this connection he has shown a good deal of leadership that is much appreciated and valued by us all.

On an entirely different level, most of us, indeed I am sure all of us consider Thomas Stelling a good friend. He always has a cheery word and a comment and is helpful in many respects. We appreciate his friendship, we thank him for his service and we wish him well for many years in the future.

Mr D. S. Cooke: I have been asked, and I appreciate the opportunity to be able to comment on Mr Stelling’s service to the people of Ontario and to this Legislature. The main reason I was chosen was not just because I am House Leader, but because in looking around, I think I am one of the few members of our caucus he has not thrown out.

Mr Eves: Yet.

Mr Pelissero: There is hope.

An hon member: We can fix that.

Mr D. S. Cooke: Now, anyone else who is missing, we can arrange that later, Tom.

It is an honour to participate. There are not many members of the Legislature and there are not many people who serve the Legislature who can put up with the elected members for 25 years. Mr Stelling has been around here since age 17, if I remember correctly from reading one of the press clippings, in a number of capacities, as a messboy, as an attendant in charge of the pages and now as Sergeant at Arms. I think he has served the Legislature and the ceremonial position of Sergeant at Arms with distinction and class.

He is a friend of all members of the Legislature. We in the New Democratic Party certainly wish him well and look forward to seeing him serve the Legislature for many years after all of us are gone. Even the member for Brant-Haldimand (Mr R. F. Nixon) will be gone and Tom Stelling will still be here.

Mr Harris: It is with pleasure that I rise on behalf of my party to honour Thomas Stelling, Sergeant at A