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

January 19, 1989

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L132 - Thu 19 Jan 1989 / Jeu 19 jan 1989

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

ACCESS TO BANKING SERVICES / ACCÈS AUX SERVICES BANCAIRES

AGRICULTURE IN THE CLASSROOM PROGRAM

ACCESS TO BANKING SERVICES / ACCÈS AUX SERVICES BANCAIRES

AGRICULTURE IN THE CLASSROOM PROGRAM

AFTERNOON SITTING

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

DEVELOPMENTALLY HANDICAPPED

EASTERN ONTARIO

ST. CATHARINES CITY COUNCIL

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

DISTRICT OF PARRY SOUND

GENERAL TIRE CANADA LTD.

ARCHITECTURAL TECHNOLOGISTS

TIME ALLOCATION

UKRAINIAN INDEPENDENCE DAY

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

PUBLIC SECTOR PENSION PLANS

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION / INDEMNISATION DES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL

RESPONSES

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

PUBLIC SECTOR PENSION PLANS

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

PUBLIC SECTOR PENSION PLANS

MEMBER FOR BRANT-HALDIMAND / LE DÉPUTÉ DE BRANT-HALDIMAND

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL SERVICES

BREWERY MERGER

TIME ALLOCATION

MUNICIPAL FUNDING

LAND RECORDS

COMMUNITY SAFETY

LAND RECORDS

CONSTRUCTION SAFETY

LAND STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM

HOMEMAKERS’ PENSIONS

NATIVE HUNTING AND FISHING RIGHTS

SERVICES FOR HEARING-IMPAIRED

COURT FACILITIES

ASSISTANCE FOR THE DISABLED

SMALL FOOD PROCESSORS’ ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

TIME ALLOCATION

PETITIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

HOME CARE

RETAIL STORE HOURS

MOTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

HEALTH PROTECTION AND PROMOTION AMENDMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

POLICE AND SHERIFFS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 10 am.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

ACCESS TO BANKING SERVICES / ACCÈS AUX SERVICES BANCAIRES

Mr. Morin moved resolution 54:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario, the municipalities and the banking institutions should enter into an agreement whereby recipients of welfare and social assistance cheques are provided with identification cards that would give them easy access to banking services without having to resort to using cheque cashing services for a percentage fee.

Le Vice-Président: M. Morin a présenté la résolution en son nom. Le député a jusqu’à 20 minutes pour faire sa présentation et il peut réserver quelque portion que ce soit pour la fin.

Le député de Carleton-Est.

M. Morin: Merci. J’aimerais réserver les quelques minutes qui me resteront après avoir présenté mon sujet.

I consider it a privilege to be able to present this important resolution to the Legislature. As we all know, even when economic times are good, there is always a segment of society that remains on the fringes of economic independence and prosperity. As a government, but particularly as members of this Legislature and members of our own communities, we must be sensitive to the hardships experienced by others and be willing to try to rectify injustices in the system.

If I may quote from the recently completed report of the Social Assistance Review Committee, “We begin with the belief that each person is of inherent worth and should be presumed capable of reason, choice, self-realization and independence.” Society has a responsibility to assist its members in their development and integration within a framework of economic equality and social justice. It has become a fact of life in the modern age that an individual’s identity in a society hinges on his or her relationship with financial institutions and all the services that they offer: credit, loans and credit ratings.

The chartered banks assume a very important role in the national economy as conduits of financial resources and information. A child’s first bank account has the symbolic significance of the rite of passage to adulthood. It is the first step in a lifelong relationship. However, there is a glaring gap between what is taken for granted by one segment of society as compared to another.

I am referring to the growing number of Ontario citizens who are forced to depend on small operations which provide limited financial services for a percentage fee, more particularly, the cheque cashing operations. It is a generally held view that the growth of these questionable services is symptomatic of a much larger problem: the limited access that low-income consumers have to traditional financial services.

Cheques, credit cards and the electronic transfer of funds have all become the normal way of conducting financial transactions for the majority, but these critically important services are beyond the reach of many. The instant teller has all but replaced the friendly teller who used to do our weekly transactions. In large urban centres, the customer at any bank is often identified only by a number and a financial history. At the press of a key, a bank can call up an extensive profile on any one of its customers. Decisions to grant loans, mortgages and credits are all based on that profile. This, unfortunately, is the reality of the computer age.

There are a significant number of people who are denied access to the financial services that are regularly used by most Canadians. These are the poor, the unemployed, single mothers on welfare and the disabled. They do not require the range of services you and I might need. They simply want to cash their cheques without unfair costs the same way we do. It would certainly seem like a simple and normal expectation. Unfortunately, in many instances that is not the case.

In the course of researching this issue, what struck me was that any two branches of the same bank in the same town could have different practices when it comes to cashing cheques. Practices often vary from region to region and community to community. Each bank has its own general policy in dealing with individuals who are not branch customers. I met with the Canadian Bankers’ Association which stresses that there are no bank policies specifically addressing the servicing of welfare recipients for the encashment of welfare cheques.

It is because of the lack of this consistent policy within the banking community that I feel that it is imperative that we in this Legislature take the initiative to make normal banking services and confidentiality accessible to everyone.

For most Canadians, the prospect of not being able to cash a cheque is inconceivable. Yet every month thousands of low-income Canadians find themselves in the position of receiving cheques which they can cash only with a great deal of difficulty or for a percentage fee. Many banks are reluctant to handle government cheques because of the potential of financial loss due to fraud. Low-income Canadians are much more dependent on government cheques than middle- and upper-income Canadians.

Probably the most significant barrier between the poor and banking services is identification. Most of us carry around every conceivable form of identification. Drivers’ licences, social insurance cards, credit cards, birth certificates -- name it, we carry it. The poor, on the other hand, because of their financial situation, may not have access to these means of identification. Those without a fixed address have an even greater problem in obtaining identification and then keeping it, because of the nature of their lifestyle.

In order to cash a cheque at a financial institution, an individual must either be an account holder or, if not, he must produce sufficient identification. Even if a low-income individual successfully opens a bank account, he is required to wait a few weeks until the cheque clears before being able to withdraw funds.

Many financial institutions have a policy which provides that nonactive accounts be closed. The accounts of many social assistance recipients would not qualify as active, because they contain insufficient funds or are not accessed frequently enough.

Provincial and municipal social assistance and welfare cheques are mailed to recipients. The cheques are sometimes delayed, lost or stolen. In these cases, the cheques have to be reissued, invariably causing a great deal of hardship and stress for the recipients.

Faced with these hurdles, many low-income Ontarians have been forced to look to alternative sources for cashing their cheques. These sources include owners of rooming houses and apartments, corner stores and businesses and, particularly, cheque cashing operations. They require little or no identification. They are easily accessible and much less intimidating than banks. The disadvantage is that these services are offered for a fee, anywhere from 2.9 per cent to 4.9 per cent, for cashing a social assistance cheque.

Cheque cashing operations had their start in western Canada. On July 1, 1982, the first of these businesses, National Money Mart Cheque-Cashing Centres Ltd., opened a branch in Edmonton. By 1985, the company had opened some 30 offices across Canada. At least two more companies have recently entered the business and are competing for the lucrative profits to be made from cheque cashing. They are Canada Cheque-Cashing Services and Money Exchange.

In Ontario, welfare cheques range from approximately $375.75 to $875 per month for a single person under 65 years of age. Three per cent of this equals between $11.27 and $26.25. If a person is forced to use this service every month, he or she will lose between $135 and $315 every year. This lost income could go for food, clothing for children or perhaps pay for some small pleasure in the course of the year. Money marts profit from this situation to the detriment of low-income persons.

I would think that members would have a very strong objection to paying a percentage fee for having our cheques cashed. Think of it in terms of those who can least afford it. At first glance, the fees charged by the cheque cashing outlets might not seem too unreasonable, but when one calculates what these fees represent on an annual basis, the true significance of this situation comes across. These are tax dollars being redirected from their intended goal of helping the poor to generating profits for cheque cashers. This is an intolerable situation and one that needs to be remedied as quickly as possible.

This problem has been identified by the Social Assistance Review Committee in its report. It has also been noted by the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations in its legislative review project and by the National Anti-Poverty Organization. It is also seen as a problem by the Canadian Bankers’ Association. With all these interested, concerned and affected parties, I would hope that, with some co-operation and initiative, we could rectify this inequity.

Governments have often been accused of being slow to respond to problems. This is the perfect time and a perfect issue to prove that accusation wrong.

Let me now take a moment to share with you some of the recommendations that have been put forward to solve this problem. I would like to emphasize that the adoption of any of these would be done on a voluntary basis -- not imposed on anyone but done on a voluntary basis; this is important.

From the outset, it should be pointed out that no solution or recommendation is ever 100 per cent foolproof. However, I am confident that the three options I am proposing today will go a long way towards solving the problem.

One of the most commonly suggested solutions is direct deposit. The direct deposit system allows for the payment of social assistance benefits through the use of a computer that electronically transfers a client’s payment directly to his or her bank account.

The benefits of direct deposit are that it would eliminate lost and stolen cheques; there would be no need to worry about the inconvenience of mail lost or postal strikes; from the administrative point of view, direct deposit is time-saving and cost-effective. This method preserves client dignity and fosters self-determination. It is a method that is also favoured by the banks.

One drawback to this method of payment is the fear of garnishment of benefits. Under existing legislation, welfare cheques cannot be seized by creditors. However, nothing prevents a bank from taking a payment that had been deposited directly into an account. If a client has outstanding debts and feels that his benefits may be threatened by garnishment, he should have the option to opt out of the direct deposit and be eligible for another option.

The Canadian Bankers’ Association has proposed the assurance of a government identification card as an option for those individuals who prefer to receive their cheques or do not have a bank account. I have been told that the banks are willing to negotiate with both the municipal and provincial governments to come up with an acceptable policy for the encashment of cheques.

I have spoken to the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton), asking him to look into the feasibility of using the ministry’s equipment in order to produce an identification card that would be equivalent in credibility to a driver’s licence.

There are a number of factors that would have to be studied before the system could be considered, such as the cost to the province and municipalities, criteria for issuing a card, and a monitoring system to prevent the possibility of misuse and fraud.

The National Anti-Poverty Organization also suggested that these cards could be provided by the banks free of charge and be kept by the banks, replacing the signature cards that they currently keep on file. Unlike the signature cards, one would not need to have a bank account in order to have a photo card on file. Thus, nonaccount holders would have easy access to cheque cashing services at any bank where they are registered.

I spoke to the bankers’ association about the feasibility of this proposal. It felt that this option would be administratively cumbersome and would too obviously identify social assistance recipients.

However, the government-issued identification card would retain the plan’s confidentiality and access to the same services and consideration as any other account holder has. Again, I stress that the acquisition of this card would be completely voluntary.

The third option would be the withdrawal card. It is a system by which clients can obtain funds from a teller or an automated teller machine. The funds would be held by the province or the municipality. This option would give clients access to their benefits 24 hours a day through the Interac network of automated teller machines.

In the United States, they are testing the feasibility of the Smart card. The Smart card differs from a regular withdrawal card because it has a built-in memory and an expanded capacity. This electronic payment system is being tested in the United States to issue welfare benefits and unemployment insurance benefits.

The pilot test has shown that the Smart card fits the clients into the mainstream of society, letting them make machine transactions just like everyone else. It also provides safety and convenience and reduces embarrassment for the client.

These options would provide welfare and social assistance recipients the same service, flexibility, consideration and confidentiality that every middle- and upper-income Canadian has access to. This should be a given and not an exception.

Mr. Allen: It is a privilege always to participate in private members’ hour and to discuss the resolutions and proposals that members bring forward concerning the public business of this province. Certainly there is one subject which needs a great deal of attention and constant concern on the part of this Legislature, and that is, of course, the condition of the neediest in our communities.

The member has put forward a resolution which proposes to address one of the awkward and difficult moments in the life of a recipient of social assistance, namely the problem of cashing a cheque. Many of us, indeed, have had the experience, even though we are not on social assistance and even though we may not be poor, of finding ourselves in a community where we are not known and expecting to be able to be recognized in some fashion and trying to cash a cheque. The embarrassment at the difficulties is indeed extreme.

One knows that one may send young people from one’s family off to another community, for example, and give them a deposit cheque to place in a bank in another community where they may be going to university, only to find that the money cannot be used for an indefinite period of time until somebody has certified that this person somehow is an acceptable person in the eyes of the bank, and then one has to scramble and make arrangements for that member of one’s family on an emergency basis.

Those inconveniences are nothing compared with the problems that people on social assistance face day in and day out, or perhaps one should say month in and month out, as they receive their cheques and then attempt to cash them.

The difficulty, of course, is compounded by the obvious fact that the levels of social assistance that are available to people in many of our high-priced communities do not meet the needs of the monthly expenses of the person or family concerned. I certainly have had representations from any number of sole-support mothers, for example, who find that after they have paid their rent, their utilities and their outstanding commitments that are required at the beginning of every month when they receive their cheques, they either have nothing or $2 or $3 or perhaps $40 or $50 left over. Others sometimes are hit with a 50 per cent charge simply for rent alone.

Those are not uncommon situations for people to be in. Those of us who have played The Poverty Game here will realize with some personal directness the extremity and difficulty of the situation that a person on social assistance is in and the extreme need to have the resources of that cheque almost instantly available, if not sooner.

It is with some reluctance, however, that I really raise some difficult questions in my own mind about the proposal the member has made with regard to requiring or establishing a specific identity card which those people on social assistance, the welfare recipients, would have as a necessary identification mark to pledge the fact that they are indeed genuine recipients of social assistance. That, in itself, is inherently stigmatizing. While I recognize the good intentions and the careful research by the member with regard to this question, none the less, I think his note that it would be voluntary hints perhaps at a certain recognition on his part that that would remain the case.

It is, for example, my understanding that at the moment there is supposed to have been an understanding between government, banks and municipalities that the provision of three pieces of identification would serve. Even so, a story in last week’s Toronto Star tells us that a young woman by the name of Maureen presented three pieces of identification which were quite suitable and which included a driver’s licence. That was apparently not acceptable as identification.

I do not understand why it is that institutions of this kind can deny people recognition on the basis of the provision of one or two satisfactory pieces of identification. Certainly, they do it for most of the rest of us. Corner grocery stores often do it for many of us simply on the provision of a single piece of identification.

Surely some of the options the member mentioned are preferable and foolproof enough for any of us so that we might avoid the stigmatizing element of issuing an identification card simply and strictly for the person who is on social assistance.

The government of Quebec, the member has said, has required that there be no fee paid upon the presentation of a government cheque to any financial institution. Surely that requirement would take out of circulation, at least, the issue of the money that has to be paid over. Surely, the government can require by legislation that its cheques be cashed. Quite apart from getting into the electronic methods that the member has referred to, much of the problem in those two measures would surely be solved.

There is within, figuratively, throwing distance of this Legislature, out in Peel county, an administration which does now automatically open bank accounts for those on social assistance. It is done very easily. Most municipalities have the capacity to do that. I understand that in Metropolitan Toronto there is some technical problem at the moment in doing that, but surely that could be overcome within a relatively short space of time, if minds were addressing the problem.

Certainly, I think the best solution is the solution that apparently is used in New York City -- again, the member referred to this kind of an option -- where the use of a bank machine card simply gives a social assistance recipient access at any time to the funds that are available to him or her on account for that month.

That would seem to be the handiest, readiest, easiest and simplest solution and, as the member himself said, it is the kind of solution, as the Peel county solution is, which puts a social assistance recipient in the mainstream. He is using normal methods of access to funds that all of us use every day and there is nothing that separates him or her from the rest of us in the process. The stigma is gone and the alienation that is represented by having that separate identity card, not necessarily that it is inherently bad in itself to be receiving social assistance, but we all know how many people in our communities feel and react in stereotypical terms when they even hear the word “welfare.”

I should say in addition that there is an additional practice by this government which could be easily instituted. I do not think this has been changed recently, although it may have and I have not heard of it. Like the federal government, it would be very useful for this government not to post-date its social assistance cheques which would make them a more flexible instrument for the social assistance recipient to receive.

My hope would have been that the member would have perhaps left this issue a little bit more open-ended and focused on us choosing among the various items that he was proposing as possible solutions to the problem. As the resolution stands, focusing simply on the creation of an identity card that would only be held by that proportion of the poor in our community who receive social assistance, I reluctantly have to stand in opposition to that specific proposal, recognizing the overwhelming good intent that the member has and in the hope that one of the other solutions will be found to solve this problem.

Mrs. Cunningham: I, too, would like to state to the House that I very much appreciate the opportunity to speak during this private members’ hour and would like to congratulate the member for Carleton East (Mr. Morin) for his resolution this morning and for the work that went into it.

I think for the members who are not here and have not been able to hear the member for Carleton East, it is most important that they do check Hansard for this particular debate and discussion because there is much more to his resolution than what appears on Orders and Notices and for that we very much appreciate his discussion.

It is extremely important to know that we are not just talking this morning about the issuance of an identification card for a very special group of people. I think that the member in his speech stated that he was going to investigate even other alternatives to solve a very real problem for some people that we very much care about.

I think that as we try to get some information from our own constituencies as we all looked at this resolution, one of the more important statements that I think was made in London, as we called back, over a period of time, was on behalf of our mayor, Tom Gosnell. His first reaction was that we would support anything that would stop welfare recipients from being ripped off by people charging fees and I think it is basically that. That is exactly what it is.

As a person who worked in a very special agency for a very long period of time and was responsible for advising people around their finances and advising them around their great challenges in life -- and those were the stresses that single mothers face in raising their children -- I can assure you there are charges such as six per cent on a government cheque, 10 per cent on a government cheque from another province, three per cent even on a regular paycheque, two per cent on an old age pension cheque.

I cannot begin to describe to you what happened when these mothers would fill in their income tax returns and expect rebates and have as much as one third of their rebate deducted from a cheque, because they were so desperately in need of money. So this is a very real problem.

I think that my great appreciation this morning was especially when the member for Carleton East talked about options. I hope he really will take this motion and the trust that we have as elected members with him in the negotiations and see it through. I think it will take a very long time to accomplish what the member wants and we would support him in some probably very lengthy discussions. They are not new. The first discussions and recommendations that we were party to were basically in 1973, as we looked at the needs of single parents in the city of London and ultimately across Ontario and Canada. This issue was raised as a very real concern then in my own personal involvement.

The direct deposit should be looked at very carefully, because everyone knows one of the real problems for any of us when we get a cheque two days before the date we are allowed to cash it is the frustration of having to carry that around in one’s wallet or purse or pocket, and to even keep it safe. That is a very real problem for some of our special people, as it is for ourselves. So I think it is very important to look at the direct deposit.

I really appreciated the note that was made on behalf of the member for Carleton East, when he stated that there is a very real fear of garnishment there, and therefore, we all would like to underline the word optional. I think all of the alternatives that we are looking at this morning must be optional, even the identification part. I think that is important.

We looked at the willingness of the banks to negotiate around these identification cards. I think the banking institutions should take on more of a responsibility for all of the customers they serve. In fact, they should be taking on more of a social responsibility, as most institutions are within our own province. People look to us for support for sometimes very short periods of time in their lives -- that is why I have trouble sometimes with the identification card, because we do not want them to carry it for ever.

But, really, if we look at people on social assistance, most of them need our help and support for a very short period of time. Usually, it is when they are raising their young children, which may be for two or three or four years. As all the members know, the policies that we support are those policies which help them to become independent. But during that short period of time, I think it is just terrible that they should be taken advantage of because of their tremendous need -- not just because of the urgency to cash the cheque because they want the money, but because they need the money.

Therefore, I think the banking institutions should take these discussions very seriously and in fact should be looking at some of the recommendations that have been made to them many many times in the past.

We even looked at a recommendation at one time in a committee of this Legislature that said that the Ontario government passed legislation prohibiting anyone from charging a fee to cash a cheque or money order issued by any of the governments of the province. I am sure that if the member for Carleton East is not successful in his negotiations, we should in fact be looking at that kind of a recommendation.

We also looked at the Bank Act. In particular, there were recommendations that would require the

schedule A chartered banks to cash welfare cheques with no questions asked. We looked at recommendations that severe. I think the banks and the banking institutions should consider themselves quite fortunate that the kind of recommendation, with the options the member for Carleton East has presented today, is what we are discussing, as opposed to those two recommendations which they could be dealing with instead. If we cannot come to some kind of compromise, I think we should be taking even stronger stands.

The member talked about a withdrawal card as being another option he would be discussing with the municipalities, which I think is very important. I congratulate the member on this one, because there are costs to the municipality in this particular recommendation and I think it is very important to know that we are discussing this in advance with the government of Ontario, the municipalities and the banking institutions; we are looking at an agreement in advance so that everyone is totally aware of the cost of this particular recommendation.

I think the Smart card is a good idea. I think, again, we should be looking at optionality. I really appreciate the word “confidentiality,” because I think all of us have had experiences in banks over the years where we have not been treated as confidentially as we had hoped.

These special people, whom we all know well, with whom some of us have worked over the years, deserve more credit than they are given. Many of them are people who are raising young children on their own and who are dealing with their children’s challenges at school and with the normal medical problems of dealing with very young children. They are often without the support of another family member and they need our support at this time.

I would just like to state in closing that I hope the member is successful in these negotiations. The Provincial Coalition for the Cashing of Cheques made a number of recommendations. I hope the member is aware of that report, as I am sure he is, and that he will take those recommendations to his discussions. I have them for him, if he does need them.

I think the banks should also be looking at their three requirements for opening accounts: the social insurance number, the driver’s licence and the credit card. The last two are not available to many members of our society because they choose not to operate with credit cards or they are not eligible for them; they choose not to drive cars or they simply do not have them. I think those three requirements should be seriously discussed as the member enters into negotiations on our behalf.

I thank him for his motion. I think it is a very caring motion which will help members of our society in a very real way.

Mr. Offer: It is an honour and a privilege for me to take

part in this very important debate with respect to the private member’s resolution of the member for Carleton East. First, I am in total support of the resolution. Second, it certainly would be remiss on my part not to congratulate the member for the work he has done, for the analysis, for the research, for his commitment, for his determination and for the effort he has put forward in this type of resolution.

I have known the member for a number of years and I know this is a continuation of the type of effort he has put forward. I remember that a number of years ago this kind of resolution was put forward in terms of tax discounters and the hardship they put on those who are least able to afford it. This is a continuation of the member for Carleton East’s determination, effort and commitment to help those who most need help.

I think this is a matter about which those who might be watching these debates on television say, “I’m not even aware that this happens to be a problem.” They look upon their bank as a place where they go once a week, maybe twice a week, and when they think of going, they think of a minor irritation that they may have in terms of lining up or what is in their account, but never in terms of whether they in fact have access to that bank.

This is indeed a problem, which of course those who are in the middle or upper class do not have, but it is a very real problem for those on assistance. It is a problem that we must, first, identify as a problem and, second, address our minds to how it can be solved.

We have to work on the basis and accept the principle that this type of problem is indeed solvable. The member for Carleton East has put forward in his resolution the use of identification cards. We have heard some other alternatives to the solution of this problem, so we work on the principle that this problem, with a will, is indeed solvable.

Why do we have this? For the majority of Canadians, banking is really just a part of life. It is a thing that you have to do. It comes with some irritation of a minor nature, but it is something that we do. It is something that we accept. We never question our access to the bank. But for a significant number of Canadians, their dealing or lack of dealing with the bank is more than just a minor irritant, because across not only this province but this country there is indeed a lack of access to financial services. Access to financial services is indeed restricted.

When I talk about financial services, I am not talking about services that might be deemed or thought of as luxurious services. We are talking about the most basic of services. We are talking about the service of an individual to cash a cheque. For many in our society, this is a service that is very, very difficult. The result of this difficulty is not only that the cheque cannot be cashed but it manifests itself in the fact that people do not have money to purchase food.

Why do we have this problem? One of the problems that has been discussed by all members is the whole question of identification. When we talk about identification, we think about licences, ownership, insurance. Of course, we think about a social insurance number. We think about wallets that contain so many pieces of identification we do not even know all that is contained. But we must also realize and understand that is not available to those persons who are under and have social assistance.

These items of identification, such as drivers’ licences, automobile insurance ownership cards, are items that many low-income Canadians cannot afford. It results in a difficulty in providing identification, which results in a difficulty in then cashing cheques, which manifests itself in a difficulty of then being able to use the money from the cheque for the purpose for which it was received.

There are alternatives to the banks. There are alternatives such as grocery stores, landlords, relatives, friends. All of these may or may not have a fee. The point is that there is also the growth of these cheque cashing services that impose a fee on people who are least able to pay that fee. Because of that, it imposes upon all of us an obligation, a responsibility to do what we can to make certain that those persons who need those cheques cashed, who are having difficulty in accessing financial services, are able to have cheques cashed without a fee imposed. This is a very fundamental type of problem.

It is a problem which boggles the mind in terms of one individual being issued a cheque and not being able to cash it.

There are solutions to this problem. Some of the solutions have been brought forward by, particularly, the member for Carleton East, who has, as I indicated earlier, devoted much time to investigating this problem. We have heard the whole question of photo identification cards to facilitate a solution to this problem, because there is a solution to this problem. There are alternatives to this type of problem that people are having in getting cheques cashed.

In the short time available to me, I would like to say that I know the region of Peel has dealt with this problem through the whole mechanism of direct deposit, another alternative for the solution of this problem. We know that in the region of Peel it is a direct method of paying welfare benefits using a computer to electronically transfer a sum of money from the agency of issue directly to the client’s bank account.

Of course, it is an obligation and it foists responsibility on, for instance, the region of Peel to have a well-defined computer system. This they have done. The region of Peel has been using this system for a number of years. The type of system they have worked out is that four days before the payment date, welfare workers review and approve the list of recipients entitled to benefits. The list will include the following: the client’s name, address, date of birth, bank branch address, bank account number and the approved amount to be paid.

It is the experience of the region of Peel that the cost of using this service is less than the cost of using cheques. The region of Peel has taken a step in the solution of this problem. We have heard other alternatives such as photo identification, all of which are able to be used, all of which are able to solve this problem.

I commend the member for Carleton East. I think he has raised an important issue and I stand in support of his resolution.

Mr. Farnan: I want to share with the members of the House this morning the story of very good friends of mine, Alex and Eileen Mullin, formerly of Cambridge. They are senior citizens who have moved away from Cambridge, but I think their story is very indicative of the difficulties that many people have in getting cheques cashed.

Several years ago, Alex went to his bank. He had a couple of cheques that he wished to deposit into his bank account. One of them was current, which he was able to do, and the other was post-dated. In order to leave the cheque with the bank and have it put into his account, it would have cost him a fee of $3. When he learned of this, he decided to take the cheque back and go to the bank the following day or the following week and to then deposit that cheque.

These were senior citizens. There are literally thousands of individuals like this and many of them, without a car, having to take public transportation or having to walk a considerable distance to the bank, are being forced to pay an unnecessary fee. In summer, you might say that a stroll to the bank is fine, but is this what we want for our senior citizens during cold winter months, and for welfare recipients, for a young mother trying to take care of her children, trying to rear a family?

Is this what we want, that she would have to make an unnecessary trip to the bank in order to save that precious $3 that may go towards a new pair of shoes for the kids? This is not the type of society and this is not the type of banking service that I want to see in effect.

When I look at the banks, I can legitimately say that there are dual purposes to the banking system: there is the purpose of profit and the purpose of service. I would say that the banks have a social responsibility to respond to the weakest and most vulnerable in our society. If the banks do not willingly undertake a generosity of spirit that will respond to the needs of those individuals who are in need and who are vulnerable, then indeed there is a role for legislation.

As far as the agencies that will cash cheques for a fee are concerned, I think my own view is perhaps that in their treatment of the poor, they are literally the barracudas of the financial world. There is an insensitivity, a lack of generosity and a lack of feeling on the part of these institutions. I would not be in the least bit remorseful to see controls placed on this particular type of agency which would make it impossible for them to gouge the poor and the needy.

I do believe it is important and I commend the member for Carleton East for intending to make banking services accessible to the poor and the needy. However, I do find difficulty, I am afraid, in supporting the concept of having identification cards issued. I am just not supportive at all of identifying those who are poor and those who are needy by a special card. I think if they are in receipt of a government cheque, then that cheque should not be post-dated. They should simply be able to go to the bank, deposit that cheque and have it recognized.

I do like some of the suggestions put forward by the member for Mississauga North (Mr. Offer) and the examples he gave of the initiatives in Peel county. I think we could look in that direction, but I do believe there is a responsibility for government. The quality of any government, in my mind, depends on the manner in which it deals with the needs of the poor and the most vulnerable in our society. We cannot look ourselves in the mirror with any dignity if we continue to treat our poor and our needy in this manner.

I commend the member for Carleton East for raising the issue. I hope we will proceed to solve it, but I am afraid in this particular case, because of the inclusion of identity cards, I cannot personally support the motion.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. M. C. Ray): The time remaining will permit only the opportunity for the member for Carleton East to give his wrapup.

Mr. Morin: The public’s general perception of government is that it is slow to respond to problems and inequities. However, I hope the proposals I have put forward today will help to stimulate discussion and eventually result in measures that will alleviate a problem faced by many low-income Ontarians.

To recap these options, they are as follows: direct deposit to a client’s selected bank, a government-issued identification card that would secure the client’s ability to cash a government cheque, and access to a central government fund through use of an instant bank card up to the limit of the client’s entitlement.

I believe this range of options constitutes a practical and workable solution to an obvious problem that needs to be addressed as soon as possible. I appeal to the members of the Legislature for their support.

AGRICULTURE IN THE CLASSROOM PROGRAM

Mr. Reycraft moved resolution 56:

That, in the opinion of this House, recognizing that agriculture continues to be a vital component of the Ontario economy and contributes significantly to the social and cultural character of the province; and recognizing that general awareness of the nature and importance of the agrifood system in Ontario has diminished as the province has become increasingly urbanized; and further recognizing that it is essential to present topics addressing the social and economic importance of the agrifood system to Ontarians through integration into the curricula of both elementary and secondary schools; the government of Ontario, through the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, should establish a provincial headquarters for the Agriculture in the Classroom program, to function as a collection and distribution centre for learning materials and as a learning centre for teachers and students.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. M. C. Ray): The member is reminded that he has up to 20 minutes for his presentation and may reserve any portion thereof for a wrapup.

Mr. Reycraft: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how long I will be with my opening remarks, but I do intend to reserve a couple of minutes to respond to comments that are made by other members.

I am very pleased to be able to present this morning to the assembly a resolution that addresses an issue I am very interested in, one that is of considerable importance. It certainly addresses an issue that is regarded as important by those involved in the agrifood businesses of this province. It is one that is also recognized as important by a good number of educators in many different regions of this province. However, it is an issue, I am sorry to say, that is not recognized as being important by educators in some parts of the province, nor is it recognized as being important by many other people in Ontario.

The issue is agricultural literacy, which can be loosely defined as a general knowledge of how our food is produced, how it is processed and how it is distributed to consumers in Ontario. Agricultural literacy is an issue that was of very little concern to educators only decades ago, because our society in this province was very much different then. Today, in 1989, less than three per cent and perhaps as little as two per cent of the population of this province, of its 9.5 million people, are directly involved on the farm in agriculture. In 1899, some 100 years ago, that percentage was some 67 per cent.

Certainly back then, and in fact not very many years ago, everybody either worked on a farm or had relatives or close friends who did. Everybody had at least a basic knowledge of how our food was produced, processed and distributed, because if you did not live on a farm then at least from time to time you visited relatives or friends who did and you learned from them how your food arrived at the table.

Everybody at that time had farm roots, and agricultural literacy, as it is now defined, was something people acquired outside the school system. But gradually, from decade to decade, the situation has changed and today fewer than three people out of every 100 are directly involved in food production. Now we have a large percentage of our population several generations removed from agriculture and from the agrifood industry. Many of those people have very little idea where their food comes from, how it is processed and how important the whole agrifood industry is and how important it has been to this province.

Because of the gradual transformation of Ontario from an agrarian province to an urban one, we are in danger of producing a generation of Ontarians who are agriculturally illiterate.

To that concern, some people might say, “So what?” They might ask, “Why does it matter that most of the people in this province are poorly informed about our agrifood industry?” There are a number of reasons why it matters.

First, this country of ours rightfully earned a reputation as the food basket of the world and because of our climate, our geography, the kind of soil we have, we still have the potential to make a major contribution to feeding a very hungry world. It is estimated now that the average farmer in this province produces enough food to supply 90, 100 or perhaps more people. Our agrifood industry has the ability to produce not only enough food to feed our own population, but to supply other provinces and to export to other nations as well. In fact, Ontario alone does export about $2 billion worth of agrifood products each year, making a very significant contribution to this country’s economy.

But there are some other reasons why we should be well-informed about our agriculture. While only about 130,000 to 150,000 people in the province now actually work on farms, the number employed in various agribusinesses throughout the province is much larger. Indeed, as many as 1.5 million people in this province are employed in some kind of business involved or related to the production, processing or distribution of agricultural products in Ontario.

The 1.5 million jobs, the $2 billion worth of exports and the domestic food supply are not the only reasons our young people should leave school with at least a general knowledge of agriculture. These young people need to know how their food is produced and how it is processed, because the way in which our foods are produced and processed can most certainly determine the effect of those foods on our health. As we continue to become more and more a health-conscious society, that knowledge becomes essential if our young people, our citizens, are going to make informed decisions about what we eat.

There are other reasons. The young people who are in our school system today are the future policymakers of this province. They are the people who are going to be politicians at all three levels of government. They are the people who are going to be civil servants, administrators, professionals providing advice to politicians and administrators.

They are the people who are going to make decisions or advise on decisions that will address a whole host of issues like the use of land, environmental restrictions, health regulations, decisions about the support that is going to be provided by our society for the producers and processors of agricultural products in the province. It is, therefore, in the best interests of everyone that those young people leave our school system knowledgeable about the agribusiness of this province.

There is another reason too. Not everybody who is not involved in the agribusiness of this province lives in an urban situation. Throughout the rural parts of the province, there are many people who are not involved in any way in agribusiness nor have any background or knowledge of the agribusiness of the province. Those people live on residential lots in rural areas and they too need to have an understanding of the agribusiness so that they can understand why the farmers and the food processors who live near and around them conduct their business in the way they do.

In fact, maybe if those nonfarming neighbours now had that kind of understanding I have talked about, we would not need right-to-farm legislation such as this government has just recently passed.

For those reasons and others, a general understanding of the agribusiness is important for all citizens of the province. The reality is that if you eat, you are a partner in agriculture in this province. Agribusiness is everybody’s business. Whether you are a farmer, a food processor, a distributor or a consumer, agriculture is your business.

While there is concern about the number of people in this province who are agriculturally illiterate, who do not have that general knowledge about our agribusiness, there is some cause for us to be encouraged that the problem has been recognized. We can be even more encouraged by the fact that considerable action has been taken to address the problem.

I am proud of the fact there is no part of this province where more has been done, where more action has been taken to address this problem than my own home county of Middlesex. I would like to take just a couple of minutes to talk about what has been achieved there by a relatively small group of very dedicated volunteers.

The story starts about six years ago, when three delegates from the Middlesex Women for the Survival of Agriculture attended an international conference on agriculture in the classroom in Washington, DC. They came home from that conference with a real sense of purpose about the need for action here in this province, indeed throughout the country.

Since that time, those individuals have done a number of things. They have been very active in lobbying both the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and the Ministry of Education to try to see an expansion and an improvement in the teaching of agriculturally related topics in our schools. They have produced a number of agrikits, the central feature of which is a set of puppets that can be used by teachers to introduce pupils in their classrooms to several farm industries. Those agrikits are available at a central location and they can be borrowed by teachers throughout the county for use in their classrooms.

They have organized professional activity days for teachers. They have organized farm tours for teachers and students to familiarize them with modern farming practices. They have been instrumental in the organization of other similar organizations throughout the province.

Perhaps their most notable achievement, in a long-term sense anyway, is the fact that they were involved in the organization of the very first national conference in Canada on agriculture in the classroom. That conference took place in 1987 in London and it was extremely successful, so successful that it led to a second national conference which occurred last year in Saskatchewan.

Two of the members of the Middlesex Women for the Survival of Agriculture, who were involved in that trip to Washington, who have been involved in those initiatives I have talked about since and who were, certainly, key individuals in the organization of that national conference, are here in the members’ gallery on the east side.

I want to recognize in a public way and acknowledge the contribution of Suzanne Leitch and Jean Johnson to this whole initiative because their contribution has not only bettered the cause of agricultural literacy in my county of Middlesex and throughout Ontario, but indeed throughout all of Canada.

I want to also recognize the fact that there are many other counties now where Agriculture in the Classroom initiatives have been undertaken and where excellent learning materials and teaching aides have now been produced for use in the schools of our province.

I also want to recognize the fact that the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food has made much progress in expanding its Agriculture in the Classroom program. The program was originally established in 1984 when the ministry appointed an educational specialist. Since then, it has been active in organizing professional activity days for teachers, in providing displays at conferences of all kinds, in producing resource materials that would be helpful for teachers in their classrooms, in providing input into curriculum development and in providing workshops to assist teachers.

Certainly, the ministry has recognized the importance of the project. Just last year it expanded the program significantly by appointing an additional staff person, an educational co-ordinator, and by seconding three teachers who are now involved in reviewing the existing curriculum throughout the province and in identifying opportunities to include agrifood topics in that curriculum. It has produced a number of new resources for use in the classroom, including, I want to mention specifically, a teaching kit called Many Nations, Many Farms, that recognizes the contributions of ethnic groups to agriculture in this province.

Perhaps one of the most significant developments, though, from the ministry’s point of view has been the appointment of an Agriculture in the Classroom steering committee. That was done a little more than a year ago, in 1988, with a steering committee of 12 members, including representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, educators, agribusiness and commodity groups. The steering committee’s mandate is to make recommendations to the minister on how he can take actions that will increase the awareness and appreciation of the agrifood system in this province.

Certainly, across Ontario there have been many initiatives undertaken in the whole area of agriculture in the classroom by a number of different organizations and by commodity groups. I recognize the fact that today in Ontario there is certainly a wealth of learning materials available to assist teachers. But I have a concern that the availability of those learning materials and of other means of assistance is still unknown to many of those teachers.

Therefore, I am suggesting a resolution that a provincial headquarters for the Agriculture in the Classroom program should be established, because that headquarters could then function as a centre where samples of these learning materials, perhaps even quantities of them, could be collected, stored, and distributed to teachers throughout the province.

Teachers who wanted materials would have an opportunity to visit the centre, to learn about the materials, to become familiar with them and to obtain them for use in their own classrooms. The headquarters would also have the potential to function as a learning centre for teachers where workshops could be held that would provide an opportunity for teachers to learn more about agriculture and how it is practised in this province today and in 1989.

Many locations have been suggested by people I have talked to about the headquarters and, frankly, I am not in a position at this point to recommend any particular location. I recognize that the Agriculture in the Classroom program is one that is an evolutionary mode. I recognize that significant advances have been made over the last five years and I hope that expansion continues because it is obvious that much more needs to be done to ensure the agricultural literacy of the population of this province.

It seems to me that the very logical next step would be the establishment of a provincial headquarters for this program. That is what this resolution recommends, and I am looking forward to the comments of other members on my proposal.

Mr. Wildman: I rise in support of the resolution presented by the member for Middlesex (Mr. Reycraft) and I agree with his comments with regard to the importance of informing young people, and people of the province generally, of the importance of the agrifood business in Ontario. I want to make some comments with regard to that.

However, I should make clear one concern I have regarding the resolution. I really am not certain why there need be a centre, a location in a particular place. If there is the commitment on the part of the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Agriculture and Food to making this happen, it seems to me that there may not be a need to have a centre separate from the normal curriculum development process of the Ministry of Education.

As long as there is adequate input from the agricultural community in the province and also from the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, I wonder whether there need be a centre for the development of curricula, the development of learning materials and the distribution of learning materials. That could be done without a physical building or centre for the dissemination of this kind of material.

I am tempted to suggest that if there were to be such a centre it should be located in a place like Sudbury where there is so little literacy with regard to agriculture and people know almost nothing about agriculture.

Mr. Villeneuve: You will notice there are no Tories in that area.

Mr. Wildman: Perhaps that is because the Tories do not know anything about mining, but that is another matter. I will say, though, in a serious vein, that I agree with the member about the need to inform our young people about the importance of the agrifood business as a contribution to our economy and the society of Ontario.

As a former educator, I can say that it is somewhat difficult to persuade -- and I know the member for Middlesex may have had this same experience -- people in the Ministry of Education and people in the teaching profession of the need to review curricula on a basis of providing educational programs with which they are not personally familiar.

I know the difficulty in the past, for example, of persuading people involved in the history programs in Ontario, or for that matter in the business programs or sociology programs, of the need to develop educational curricula related to the importance of labour and the history of labour and its contribution to Ontario, or the development of women or the development of various ethnic groups and their contributions to our society.

Agriculture though, being if not the primary industry certainly one of the primary industries in this province, should not be one that would be difficult to develop. Certainly the contribution of agriculture and the importance of agriculture crosses many educational disciplines. We can look at the history programs, the sociology programs, the economics programs and even the science programs in schools that should all be able to benefit from the development of learning materials related to agriculture and the agrifood business.

As the member for Middlesex indicated, we are entering an era, not just in Ontario but throughout the industrialized world and even the Third World, where it is important that our population become more and more aware of the fragility of our relationship with the land and the air and the water on this planet.

It is especially important that we encourage people to understand the need for good land stewardship and for development of environmental controls and environmental processes that will make it possible for us to continue to feed the ever-growing population on this planet.

Also, we are becoming more and more aware of the possible concerns related to certain additives in our food and the health hazards that might develop from the use of certain types of chemicals or new, more modern farming processes that enable fewer and fewer farmers to produce more and more food at even less cost in some ways, but at the same time may have longer-lasting effects that we are not aware of now.

I think that by educating the public, particularly now that so few people are directly related to agriculture -- at one time up until just after the Second World War, the vast majority of Canadians, if not from the farm themselves, had a grandfather or an uncle or an aunt or cousin who was on the farm. That is no longer the case. Approximately five per cent of the Canadian population is directly involved in agriculture, or less than that. Yet we are still producing far more food than we did in 1950 because we have modern equipment and agricultural practices that make it possible for fewer and fewer people to produce more and more.

But with intensive farming methods, perhaps we are producing a situation where in the future we may have serious difficulties in providing the food that we need. We have seem some of the problems that we have experienced on the Prairies just recently regarding the drought and the need for new types of tilling methods to ensure the preservation of the topsoil in that part of Canada, which is one of the bread-baskets of the world.

We cannot do that if we ignore agriculture in the classroom. We cannot do that if we do not have an informed public: not a public that has some sort of idyllic, romantic view of farming, of the rural way of life, but one that has some sort of idea of the reality of agriculture and the importance of not just the production of food itself but the food marketing, the processing, the distribution, the advertising, the production of seed, the production of equipment and its importance to them for producing jobs in our economy and helping us to have positive gross provincial and gross national products.

I think that we need to be developing these learning materials. I congratulate the members of the farm community who have taken the initiative to encourage schools and school boards and the Ministry of Education to become involved in this.

I support the efforts made by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food to encourage the Ministry of Education and teachers’ organizations across the province to become involved in this through professional development programs, the production of learning materials, farm tours for both teachers and students and other methods. For those reasons, I support this resolution. But as I again reiterate, I have some reservation about whether or not we actually need a physical centre.

I am not going to oppose the resolution on that basis, because I think it is an important resolution, one that highlights the need to have education in the classroom as a priority, not just for schools in rural Ontario but for schools and school boards in urban Ontario and also for the Ministry of Education.

I congratulate the member for bringing forward the resolution. I will support it. I have some reservations about one aspect of it, but I certainly recognize the need to inform our young people and our educators of the importance of agriculture and all of the ancillary industries related to it in our economy and our society and for the production of materials that will make it possible for us to have a real presence for agriculture in the classroom.

Mr. Villeneuve: I too want to commend the member for Middlesex and indicate at the outset my personal support and our party’s support for his private member’s bill on the topic of agriculture in the classroom.

Suggestions for aiding, however, should have emphasized a number of other points that I will maybe touch on today. I certainly wanted to agree with the member for Middlesex as he introduced Suzanne and her colleague over here in the members’ gallery. I too have a number of active ladies but, in particular, Dorothy Middleton from Chrysler in the riding that I represent, who is very active in the movement Women for the Survival of Agriculture. Certainly, that support is appreciated.

The very worthwhile idea for the Agriculture in the Classroom program originated quite some years ago. I believe it was 1982 that a former Minister of Agriculture and Food and colleague of mine, Dennis Timbrell, announced that the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and the Ministry of Education had agreed that there was a need to promote agricultural awareness in the classroom.

Indeed, a number of high schools in the riding that I represent and, in particular, Ecole secondaire Glengarry District High School did have an agricultural program until about 1986, when it was cancelled. We wonder why it was cancelled. However, it is great to see the member for Middlesex promoting and reviving what I think is a most important concept of teaching our young people.

Ontario’s agricultural population, as has been touched on by the previous speakers, is certainly down to less than three per cent and probably somewhere around two per cent, and yet that industry is a very basic and major industry in Ontario. It employs some 20 per cent or more of the population both directly and indirectly and certainly is the basic industry and probably the reason why our country and our province is in good economic condition.

Agriculture used to be taught as a credit course in secondary schools. Today, it has effectively disappeared from the curriculum. It is hardly surprising that even children from agricultural and rural areas see little relevance in agriculture when it is no longer covered or even touched on in the school curriculum.

For some years now, farmers and farm leaders have commented on the fact that the average age of farmers has been rising steadily. That means that we are not replacing our hard-working agriculturalists and farmers in this province.

Agriculture in the classroom is the first idea to come along which hopes to reverse this historic trend towards little or no knowledge of agriculture. Even though almost seven years have passed since the idea was first raised, agriculture in the classroom has failed to receive the support it deserves from this current government. While the member for Middlesex might be speaking out strongly in support of agriculture in the classroom, the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) certainly does not seem to be listening.

I appreciate that his parliamentary assistant is in the chambers here this morning. He may well be the next speaker for the government. I certainly hope the message will go to the minister that we do need additional knowledge, particularly at the secondary school level. Certainly the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) should be made aware of it as well.

In fact, the Minister of Agriculture and Food has not even been listening to farmers too well. The reduction of 60 per cent in the Ontario family farm interest rate reduction program and the farm tax rebate confusion which exists now reflect to some degree the fact that somehow or other, agriculture is being relegated to the bottom of the importance ladder of this government.

Back on topic, we can certainly say that compared to six or seven years ago, the Agriculture in the Classroom program has made clear and definite progress. It is only when we look at what must still be done that we realize so very little has actually been accomplished to date and so much remains to be done. The objective is quite clear: Our population must have a better understanding of agriculture.

The food industry is life itself. In the spring of the year the plants come to life, proceed throughout the summer and fall, and then we have a killing frost and death. In animal life, the whole ritual and sequence occurs again. I think it is most important, it is a very essential knowledge that our young people must have about life itself, and that is what happens out on the farms in rural Ontario.

To accomplish this goal, we must first convince teachers, school boards and the education bureaucracy that the objective is most worthwhile. Having done that, we must ensure that teachers have the resources and materials to provide the necessary instruction and that the material provided fits into the existing school curriculum.

In 1983, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food hired a consultant to review the existing situation. The resulting report found that there were indeed many ways in which agriculture could and should fit into the school curriculum. It also found that the Ministry of Agriculture and Food offices were contact points for teachers seeking information about agriculture and it could fit into the school curriculum. General farm organizations and commodity groups also saw the wisdom of such teaching in the classroom and are very supportive of it.

In the following year, 1984, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food appointed an education specialist, which led to a resource binder available as a classroom aid. Development began and additional resource meetings were held involving producers, agribusiness, schools and the teaching profession. Middlesex county became the first county to have a professional development program for teachers on agriculture in the classroom. I want to put in a little plug for the predecessor of the current member for Middlesex; Bob Eaton was the member at that time.

While the quality and usefulness of the resource kits were high and the professional development days generally successful, there were problems, some of which still exist and which this government has not done a great deal about. One major problem is the lack of an adequate number of resource kits. For example, the multiculturalism kit the member mentioned, Many Nations, Many Farms, will not be available until some time in 1990. It was so popular that they ran out of it. I think that is a shame. There is a need here. It was developed in 1987 and is available at two levels, one for grades 5 and 6 and the other for grades 9 and 10. It is available in both official languages.

It seems that this Liberal government at Queen’s Park wants to be remembered in history for creating waiting lists for everything: the pamphlet I just mentioned, people needing heart surgery, classroom resources, etc.

I think the member brings up a very worthwhile private member’s motion and I hope the members of this very strong Liberal government, strong in numbers at least, will move forth and act on the private member’s resolution this morning.

The member for Middlesex, I believe, earnestly wants to see more agricultural information disseminated from the classroom. I think he is in a position to act accordingly and bring forth the resources that are so badly needed.

We should think about having resource materials produced so that schools can buy what they need instead of waiting for a loan. We must always use the argument that we should always have an answer, but an answer that provides and produces what it is that is needed.

Regarding students receiving the normal French-language education, there is a large portion of francophones in eastern and northern Ontario. I think certainly the material should be oriented towards them as well and not produced only in one language.

Eastern and northern Ontario have lagged behind central and western Ontario as far as agriculture in the classroom is concerned. I am very pleased that there is a move afoot. As a matter of fact, today, January 19 happens to mark the date of the agriculture in the classroom workshop for teachers and librarians in the Ottawa region. Others will be held across Ontario.

Certainly, I think that is a move in the right direction. I can tell the member that the Ottawa workshop has been oversubscribed and that people have been turned away. The problem is, if it is that successful, why not proceed with it and not do what is being done on Sunday shopping, which is not very popular and will not likely be very successful.

In conclusion, in the remaining few seconds that I have, I would like to mention two people who are doing a great deal to promote agricultural education in eastern Ontario. One is Brian Goudge of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. He is a consultant for agriculture in the classroom in eastern Ontario. The other person is Lise Ledoux in Stormont county, where I live. She is our rural organizational specialist. Last Saturday she organized a day-long program for eight students from Cornwall Collegiate and Vocational School at the Avonmore Ministry of Agriculture and Food office. It was a most successful day.

These people went to the farms and saw just what happens on farms in eastern Ontario.

Mr. Miller: It is a pleasure to rise this morning and participate in the debate. I had hoped it would have been a little more constructive, rather than destructive, but I think agriculture does play a tremendous role in the economy of Ontario, producing about $15 billion worth of activity. One in five jobs are created by agriculture. I would like to congratulate the member for Middlesex for bringing this resolution forward and giving us an opportunity in the early part of 1989 to debate and promote agriculture in this Legislature through our private members’ hour.

The member is a former principal of an elementary school and a teacher in a secondary school. He has firsthand observations to provide for this Legislature on how effective our school system has been. I think the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) is also a former teacher and he made a good contribution. The member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve), a farmer, was just kind of raking over the past and not really looking to the future.

Mr. Pelissero: They always do that.

Mr. Miller: I think we have to look to the future in agriculture with a positive approach.

Mr. Villeneuve: Give a little bit of credit where credit is due.

Mr. Wildman: The party of the past.

Mr. Miller: However, in response to the question raised by the honourable member for Middlesex --

Mr. Villeneuve: You didn’t see those polls, did you, Bud?

Mr. Miller: Yes, we did. We keep an eye on the polls. Like the Premier (Mr. Peterson), we do not always believe in polls, but they are an indication.

We are certainly proud to be farmers and farmers totally. I do not think there are too many members of the Legislature representing the ridings around the province who received their education on the farm. I am proud to say that I have been able to achieve that with a little help from I am not sure where.

We were in Guelph on Wednesday of last week celebrating the 25th anniversary of the university. I had the opportunity of representing the minister. I was proud to do that, even though I only gained my education at the Jarvis public and continuation school. We have been able to achieve much and I do not think we have quit learning even though we did not have those opportunities.

This morning, I would like to respond to the question raised by the honourable member for Middlesex about what is being done to educate Ontario students about the importance of agriculture.

The Ontario government is firmly committed to teaching future generations about the agrifood sector, not only to make them understand how food gets from the farm to the dinner plate but also to appreciate the economic importance of the province’s second-largest industry.

I think that is the underlying fact, how much it means not only to rural Ontario but to our urban friends, whether it is in Metropolitan Toronto or other large cities across the province; to the population generally.

In 1984, the then Minister of Agriculture and Food launched the Agriculture in the Classroom program. I think the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry should get that correct. I indicated that. Through this program, three important new educational resources have been produced for use in the schools: first, a resource binder for the food and energy sector of grade 9 science curriculum; second, a variety of printed and video materials for the use of elementary and secondary students; and third, a multiculturalism in agriculture resource kit called Many Nations, Many Farms for use by teachers in grades 5 and 6 and grades 9 and 10. A kit for grade 7 and 8 is now being developed.

I think that is really what the member is talking about with this resolution. We do need a centre to make sure that this material is updated and is available for all education centres across the province. I think that is really what we are talking about this morning.

As well, the Agriculture in the Classroom resource catalogue has been updated. As a future refinement, this inventory of educational materials from all different sources in Ontario has been grouped into four categories: primary-junior, intermediate, senior and French.

Thanks to the co-operation of the boards of education throughout Ontario, agriculture is once again becoming an active part of the school programs.

To promote the use of the materials which have been produced and compiled by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, some 13 workshops called Ag Aware, Why Care? are being presented to teacher resource librarians at various locations around the province. Also, many local agricultural organizations are providing volunteer assistance to help implement the Agriculture in the Classroom program. For instance, local groups have been helping out by presenting professional development days for teachers across the province.

I think, as the member for Middlesex pointed out, we have a group here this morning that played an important role in that. In fact, one of the most interesting initiatives is being organized in my honourable colleague’s riding by the Association for Food and Agricultural Awareness in Middlesex. It is called Adopt a Classroom; the idea is for local farmers to each adopt a classroom for a year, visiting the schools to explain their work as the seasons progress and then bringing the students out to their farms for tours.

I think that is an important role that has been played and will continue to be played to get young people to the farms so they can actually see the changing of the seasons, the harvesting and that process which is very intriguing as our seasons progress.

So far, response to the Agriculture in the Classroom program has been good and the demand by teachers for the resources made available by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food has been growing.

In all of 1988, the ministry received 170 requests for their Agriculture in the Classroom videos; again, to the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry. In 1989 there have already been 153 requests for the multiculturalism in agriculture kit alone.

This greater interest results in large part from the efforts of three professional educators who were seconded by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food from their teaching positions to help promote the agriculture in the classroom program.

Other new initiatives and improvements to this program are now under consideration. The ministry will soon be presented with a final report from the agriculture in the classroom steering committee. This committee is composed of representatives from the education system, producer groups and agricultural organizations as well as the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and the Ministry of Education. So there is co-operation, perhaps for the first time on a major scale, between the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and the Ministry of Education.

The report will recommend priorities for the agriculture in the classroom program. I am sure the ideas discussed by my colleague the member for Middlesex will play an important role in that report.

As I say, it is the commitment of the Liberal government of Ontario to establish the importance of the agriculture and food industry in the education of young Ontarians.

I would also like to take a moment to pay tribute to our marketing boards. Each year, many of them elect queens to represent them. I can think of the Dairy Princess, the Tobacco Queen and the Plowing Queen, who go from school to school representing various marketing boards and rural communities in our education system. They play a tremendous role in making those young people aware of what is really produced in rural Ontario and the good things we grow on our farms.

I would also like to inform the Legislature, in the last few seconds, how important agriculture and food are. When we look at the Third World countries where young people are starving because they cannot get access to the food because their government system does not permit that, it sure makes us feel satisfied that Canada and Ontario are good providers of that food, and we want to continue to do that.

Mr. Hampton: I want to speak in favour of this resolution. I think it is a very timely resolution and I want to address some of the reasons I think it is a most worthwhile resolution.

I just got off the phone from speaking with a former president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture in my constituency. He is also a former farmer, because he came through the latest recession without his farm. In the midst of the last recession he had to file for bankruptcy. One of the things we talked about, momentarily, was the fact that farm organizations in the province have been pressing for the kind of action that is indicated in this bill for at least the past 10 years.

I can say to the member for Middlesex that it is a most important resolution. I am only sad to say that the government has not yet acted in this area, because it is a most important area.

There are all kinds of reasons education about agriculture ought to be integrated into the school program more than it is. Some of them are bound up, I would say, with our very survival. One need only look at the figures which illustrate the continuing loss of agricultural land, not just in Ontario but across Canada. In Ontario, we lose most of our agricultural land, unfortunately, to parking lots and industrial development. That still continues despite the fact that the issue was highlighted more than 10 years ago and that some members of the government were here at that time and spoke eloquently on the need for some controls on that.

My family has some experience with the loss of agricultural land. Our experience dates back to the Depression when my grandfather had to leave Saskatchewan because his farm literally blew away. One of the things we have seen in northwestern Ontario in the last two years is a recurrence of the kinds of dirty clouds that occurred in the 1930s, as land in southern Saskatchewan and southern Manitoba indeed has suffered from wind erosion again. We are losing agricultural land not just to the developers but also to some poor farming practices.

I think one of the other things that would need to be emphasized in this kind of program is the whole issue of agriculture and the environment. Across the northwest of this province, many farmers have in fact spoken to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and pointed out to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food the extent to which the greenhouse effect is already illustrating its presence across the northern part of the province. Our summers are warmer, our winters are shorter and we are not getting as much precipitation. It is an issue, I would say, we are all bound up with.

One of the other issues that I think needs to be addressed in any program that is envisioned by this resolution is the whole issue of agriculture and nutrition. In my constituency and in that of the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Pouliot), a number of farmers have struggled for some time to get a chicken quota, the need for a chicken quota in northern Ontario.

I remember not too long ago attending a federation of agriculture meeting. A couple of farmers pointed out that they thought they could produce chickens as cheaply as some farms in the United States. I produced an

article for them that appeared in the Globe and Mail where it was pointed out that in fact a lot of the poultry that is produced in the United States is raised on a consistent diet of antibiotics because of the differing health regulations for poultry farming in the United States and Canada.

I wonder how many of us want to eat poultry that is stuffed or loaded with antibiotics. Perhaps the problem is we do not know it is loaded with antibiotics. Recently in British Columbia, for example, a dairy contracted with some dairy farmers to feed their dairy cattle a special type of feed that was loaded with a steroid type of hormone. The hormone increased the milk production a great deal, but not surprisingly, when people found out they were drinking milk that was loaded with a steroid-type hormone, dairy sales fell off incredibly.

I think it is very fair to say that these kinds of things need to be integrated into the education system in our province. I think many consumers and many people would appreciate knowing more about the impact of agriculture on their lives and the likely impact of agriculture on their lives in the future if agriculture is not practised well.

Similarly, I think a lot of people would certainly be enlightened to know the degree to which people who live in the farm community in this day and age have to work very hard for wages and income which is not at all commensurate with the amount of work they put in.

I commend the member for bringing forward this private member’s resolution. My only observation is that the government has been here for four years now; I would have thought it would have acted on this already, in view of the fact that the federations of agriculture have been pressing for it for the last 10 years.

Mr. Speaker: I believe the member for Middlesex reserved approximately one minute.

Mr. Reycraft: I want to thank the member for Algoma, the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, the parliamentary assistant to the minister and member for Norfolk (Mr. Miller) and also the member for Rainy River (Mr. Hampton) for their contributions to the debate.

I also want to acknowledge the fact that I have received a number of phone calls from individuals and organizations over the last couple of days expressing their support for the resolution. Those messages have been appreciated.

I have also been advised that we have three representatives of the Perth County Women for the Survival of Agriculture in the Speaker’s gallery who are here today especially for this debate, and I certainly want to welcome them.

I heard the criticisms. I want to say that I reject the accusations that the Minister of Agriculture and Food has not supported the Agriculture in the Classroom program. It seems to me that an increase in the staff from one to five and the appointment of a new committee address this in a very tangible way.

Mr. Speaker: That completes the allotted time for debate on the two private members’ ballot items.

ACCESS TO BANKING SERVICES / ACCÈS AUX SERVICES BANCAIRES

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Morin has moved resolution 54.

All those in favour will say “aye.”

All those opposed will say “nay.”

In my opinion the “ayes” have it.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

AGRICULTURE IN THE CLASSROOM PROGRAM

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Reycraft has moved resolution 56.

Motion agreed to.

The House recessed at 12:02 p.m.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1:30 p.m.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

DEVELOPMENTALLY HANDICAPPED

Mr. Farnan: Integration into the community means a more dignified and altogether richer life for developmentally handicapped adults, and this is made possible by the qualified people who act as counsellors.

The Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) acknowledged this when he wrote to Pamela MacGregor in June 1988, stating, “I appreciate that you and your colleagues are committed to providing high-quality, effective programs to the people in your care.” The minister also admitted, “Current turnover rates and morale problems make this a difficult challenge ... and the current salary levels are too low to ensure a program of suitable quality.”

We would all agree that the success of these community-based programs necessitates having dedicated and qualified staff. Yet in another letter to a community worker, David Wilde, in September 1988, the minister dismissed the problems faced by agencies which serve the developmentally handicapped by claiming, “A number of other sectors are in need of more urgent attention.”

It appears that the integrated developmentally handicapped program holds a low priority for the Minister of Community and Social Services. How else can we explain why community counsellors receive significantly lower incomes than their institutional counterparts?

The government is delivering these community services on the backs of a very dedicated, overstressed and poorly paid group of professionals. This is a shame, and the Minister of Community and Social Services should move to address this issue.

EASTERN ONTARIO

Mr. Villeneuve: The Liberal Party’s eastern caucus will be gathering in Cornwall this weekend. Instead of the self-serving and undeserved praise --

Interjections.

Mr. Villeneuve: -- as one can hear -- the members of that caucus have heaped upon themselves for supposedly assisting Cornwall and eastern Ontario, I want to point out that this government is indeed ignoring eastern Ontario.

A month ago, a survey revealed that Cornwall ranked 99th out of 100 cities across Canada in terms of average income. Only Sherbrooke, Quebec, was lower. I can also tell members that the situation in rural areas outside of Cornwall is even worse.

It is a shameful fact that the government of the richest province has failed to realize. The fact just has not sunk in. Whether the Liberals’ eastern caucus or cabinet is to blame really does not matter. It is this government’s responsibility to act, not to congratulate itself for something which has not even happened.

This government has failed eastern Ontario in more ways than I can outline in 90 seconds. Liberal failures in the Cornwall area include: not supporting the Mutual Aid Firemen’s Association of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry; endangering homemaker services; inadequate school funding; lack of rural development; not increasing needed road and unconditional grants; Ontario family farm interest rate reduction program cutbacks; abandoning seniors’ nonprofit housing; Sunday shopping; conservation authorities, etc.

If the Liberals want to congratulate themselves, they are doing it from either ignorance or arrogance.

ST. CATHARINES CITY COUNCIL

Mr. Dietsch: Now for something more pleasant. I would like to take this opportunity to introduce to the honourable members of this House a few distinguished guests from the great city of St. Catharines, as well as constituents and friends of mine who are seated in the members’ gallery to the west.

It has been my pleasure to have his worship Mayor Joseph McCaffery, Alderman Brian MacMullan and John Washuta, past-president of the St. Catharine’s Grape and Wine Festival, visiting Queen’s Park as members of the newly elected council for the city of St. Catharines.

We have spent the time today touring Queen’s Park and meeting with the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) in order that we might discuss our mutual goals and concerns in a positive and constructive manner. Our meetings were productive and we look forward to continuing to work together over the next few years.

I ask all the honourable members of this House to greet his worship Mayor McCaffery, the people’s mayor, Alderman Brian MacMullan and Alderman John Washuta with a warm Queen’s Park welcome.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr. Laughren: A week ago in this chamber the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) accused me of distorting the facts in a matter of an injured worker from Gogama, Mr. André Petitclerc. The facts are that the Workers’ Compensation Board denied Mr. Petitclerc benefits for chronic pain; that was appealed through my office to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal; using WCB criteria for chronic pain, they awarded benefits in October 1988, and on January 5 of this year the local Sudbury office denied benefits and suggested that Mr. Petitclerc could appeal the decision.

I raised the matter with the minister in question period and we had a special debate last week. The minister said, or at least implied, that the local office decision was inappropriate. Then, to my surprise, on Saturday, January 14, the district manager of the WCB office in Sudbury was quoted as saying that the Sudbury claim had not been denied, despite a letter that went to the injured worker, Mr. Petitclerc, on January 5, saying, “Therefore, consideration for entitlement to chronic pain disorder cannot be granted.”

The minister does not know what the Sudbury office is doing and the Sudbury office does not know what the Minister of Labour is saying. This is a travesty on an injured worker and the Minister of Labour does not seem to take it at all seriously. Both I and Mr. Petitclerc are owed an apology by the Minister of Labour.

DISTRICT OF PARRY SOUND

Mr. Eves: It is with some regret that I rise in the Legislature this afternoon to talk about an issue that I thought the Premier (Mr. Peterson) had put to rest on June 9, 1988; that is, the matter of the district of Parry Sound being included in northern Ontario effective April I of this year.

I have in my hand a letter from the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan). I wrote on November 30, 1988, confirming that indeed the northern health travel grant program would be including all of the district of Parry Sound effective April 1, 1989. I have here a letter from the minister dated January 10, 1989, saying that will not be the case. I would like to know where the government’s credibility is on this issue. This issue goes back to December 5, 1985, with the Minister of Health’s predecessor, the member for Bruce (Mr. Elston), at that time announcing the northern health travel grant program.

On December 13 I talked about that to the member for Bruce, the Minister of Health of the day, and he told me it would be reviewed at the end of that year. On February 12, 1987, I raised this issue in estimates with the Premier, as he was then doubling as the Minister of Northern Development. He indicated that he would review it at the end of the year.

On June 26, 1987, my first private member’s resolution to have Parry Sound included in northern Ontario was passed unanimously by this House. I wrote again to the then minister on August 18, 1987. I had another private member’s resolution approved by this Legislature, by this group of parliamentarians, again unanimously, on April 28, 1988. We had the announcement by the Premier and by the Minister of Northern Development (Mr. Fontaine) on June 9, and now we have a contradiction.

GENERAL TIRE CANADA LTD.

Mr. Owen: Yesterday the Premier (Mr. Peterson) announced a $159-million modernization and expansion of General Tire Canada Ltd. in Barrie. It means the conversion to radial passenger and light-truck tire technology. It means Barrie’s largest manufacturer will increase from 900 employees to 1,100 employees. It means a further move by Ontario into a solid position in the international automotive industry. It means bringing General Tire’s Barrie plant in line with competitive tire plans worldwide. Barrie is grateful. Barrie acknowledges the co-operation and efforts of municipal officials in accommodating land and services.

Barrie acknowledges the initiative and enthusiasm of local General Tire management in persuading its Ohio and German executives. Barrie acknowledges the atmosphere of positive employer-employee relations which encouraged this investment. Barrie acknowledges the hands-on approach of the Premier, who personally met with local management as well as with officials of Continental in Europe and who, with the honourable Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter), brought these negotiations to a successful conclusion. The future of the tire industry in Barrie and in Ontario indeed looks bright.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Etobicoke-Rexdale, for about a minute.

ARCHITECTURAL TECHNOLOGISTS

Mr. Philip: The Architects Act makes provision for making regulations to govern what acts can be done by persons other than registered architects. However, regulations have not been drafted in the area of practice for architectural technologists.

The architectural technologists have been in correspondence with the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) over the past several years in an attempt to get such regulations made, without success. More recently, they took it on themselves to draft proposed guidelines for themselves, including suggested amendments to the Ontario Building Code.

They have attempted to submit this policy document to the Attorney General, but his office suggested that the proposals are too technical for his consideration and has referred them to the council of the Ontario Association of Architects. This body has looked at the proposals and rejected them.

I propose that the Attorney General immediately meet with the technologists. Not to meet with the technologists on the grounds that the submission is too technical is to deny them an opportunity to an impartial adjudication under the act. The minister has the responsibility to ensure that the act is administered fairly to all interested parties. I urge the Attorney General to do so.

TIME ALLOCATION

Mr. B. Rae: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: There is in the Orders and Notices today a government notice of motion 20, which stands in the name of the government House leader. I will have a rather extensive argument to make that not only is this motion out of order but it is without precedent in our proceedings in this House; it has never been done before in this way.

I want to simply give you notice, Mr. Speaker, that I do not want to take away from question period but I do at the earliest possible opportunity after question period want to put some arguments before you as to why this motion should not even be allowed on the order paper let alone be moved.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that the Leader of the Opposition says he wishes to ask permission of the House to discuss a matter following question period. I suppose we will wait until the time when he makes that request.

Mr. Ruprecht: I rise to ask for unanimous consent of the House to make a special statement on the subject of Ukrainian Independence Day.

Agreed to.

UKRAINIAN INDEPENDENCE DAY

Mr. Ruprecht: On behalf of the Premier (Mr. Peterson), the Minister of Citizenship (Mr. Phillips) and my colleagues in government, I rise for the purpose of recognizing January 22 as an important date in the history of freedom-loving people and with special significance to our Canadian citizens of Ukrainian heritage.

Permit me to introduce to the House a delegation of prominent members of the Ukrainian-Canadian community. Among them are Dr. Peter Hlibowych, president of the Ukrainian Canadian Committee, Ontario council; the Very Reverend Petro Bublyck, a representative of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada, and His Grace Bishop Borecky of the Ukrainian Catholic Church.

Today is the commemoration of the 71st anniversary of January 22, 1918, the proclamation of Ukraine as a sovereign democratic nation and of the unification of the eastern and western provinces of Ukraine into a single, independent state exactly one year later on January 22, 1919.

We who live in a democratic society do not always appreciate our good fortune. We take for granted our freedom of speech, of the press, religion, travel and, most important, the right not only to criticize but also to openly vote for the party of our choice.

The courageous determination of the Ukrainian people to regain this kind of freedom is a source of inspiration to all mankind and, having tasted liberty, neither the weapons of starvation nor prison walls could extinguish the torch of freedom and hope that has been resolutely passed on from one heroic generation to the next. I am convinced the rich heritage and proud tradition of Ukrainians will endure for ever.

Those who have come to Canada from Ukraine in search of freedom and opportunity since 1891 have made important contributions to the development of our province and country and to the enrichment of our culture. With their ethic of hard work and study, they have taken their rightful role as leaders in the professions, business, education, sport and government.

We admire the unbreakable spirit of optimism and hope of our Ukrainian friends. In spite of past tragic events, they have become a symbol to all freedom-loving peoples as torch bearers of democracy, torch bearers of people who justly want only to determine their own future and structure their own destiny.

It gives us great pleasure to extend our heartiest congratulations and best wishes to the thriving Canadian-Ukrainian community as we recognize January 22, 1989, as Ukrainian Independence Day and commend its observance to all the people of Ontario.

Finally, as Ukrainians follow the Julian calendar, they celebrate New Year’s Day on January 14.

[Remarks in Ukrainian]

Mr. Philip: I have a statement on the same subject. Almost 50 years ago, on March 14, 1939, Carpatho-Ukraine was proclaimed an independent state. Although its independence was short-lived, it was the first country to mount an armed resistance to Nazi Germany and its allies. After the Second World War, all ethnically Ukrainian lands became part of the Soviet Union.

Ukraine is one of the founding members of the United Nations, and it and Belorussia, Ukraine’s neighbour to the north, are the only two UN members that are not fully sovereign nations.

As our party’s critic for Citizenship, I am proud to recognize the contributions of Ukrainians of Ukrainian origin.

The first major wave of Ukrainian immigration to Canada occurred between 1890 and 1914. Most of those leaving Ukraine settled primarily in rural areas.

The second major immigration occurred during the two world wars and resulted in settlements throughout the prairie provinces. Then, between 1947 and 1954, approximately 34,000 Ukrainians who were displaced by the Second World War arrived in Canada and many of them made their homes in Ontario. By 1981, 25 per cent of Ukrainians lived in this province.

Today, Ukrainians form a mature ethnocultural group. My colleagues and I in the New Democratic Party wish to join other members in indicating our deep appreciation for the contribution they have made to our national life, and we wish them well on this day.

Mr. Cousens: The Ontario Progressive Conservative caucus would like to join all members of the House today in recognizing this very special day. I am just sorry that the member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson) could not be here, because his grandparents on his mother’s side are Ukrainian. As the other honourable member did, he would have put a few extra touches to our remarks today.

In his absence and on behalf of our party, we too would like to share in marking Sunday, January 22, 1989, as a very special anniversary for the Ukrainian-Canadian community and indeed for all Ukrainians, both in their homeland and throughout the world.

This day recalls the singular events over 70 years ago when the Ukrainian people experienced the long-awaited realization, however short-lived, of their dream of an independent state. This anniversary is therefore of substantial significance to all nations, especially here in Canada, where freedom is a cornerstone value and where tyrannical rule is opposed wherever it exists.

Ukraine held on to its vision of independence through many years of national repression at the hands of its enemy neighbours. This vision was continually kept alive in the hearts of the Ukrainian people by great military victories over the years.

The vision of Ukraine independence crystallized in the decided opposition to Russian autocratic rule. It was injected with new and vibrant life by the prophetic poetry of Taras Shevchenko in the 19th century, who reminded his fellow countrymen of the glories of ages past and of, as he wrote, “who (the Ukrainians) were, of whose parents children they were.”

The vision took on a new dimension in the early part of this century as the Ukrainian people saw in the ashes of crumbled empires their opportunity to assert their rights for independent statehood and then moved quickly and decisively to grasp it.

On January 22, 1918, the Central Rada Administration of Kiev issued its Fourth Universal, in which it declared the independence of the Ukrainian republic and its right to autonomous self-government. It declared that Ukrainians everywhere now had a homeland of their own and that they were no longer second-class citizens in their own country.

It was not long, however, before the Russian state moved to crush this young state. Ukrainian history since that time is a record of heroic sacrifice and determination in the face of staggering odds in defence of that vision of independent statehood and freedom, a vision which has neither died nor been wrested from the minds and hearts of Ukrainian people everywhere.

Ukraine will endure and Ukraine will be free again. January 22 will one day be greeted not only by statements in the governing houses of free nations around the world, but also by the ringing of bells from the churches of Kiev, of Lwiw and of Kharkiv.

The fundamental question before the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is that of the right to national self-determination for Ukraine and all republics and satellites of the Soviet communist empire. That question has yet to be answered. The enslaved peoples of the Soviet Union eagerly await an answer, perestroika and glasnost notwithstanding.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

PUBLIC SECTOR PENSION PLANS

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I want to report to the Legislature today on the completion of recent talks with representatives of the public service and teachers concerning their pension plans, as well as the government’s future intentions regarding the plans’ financing.

Members will recall that the government received three reports last year indicating serious financial problems with the automatic inflation protection benefits of the plans. During the fall, these matters, together with other possible reforms to the pension plans, were discussed in detail with representatives of teachers, public servants and other involved plan members.

The Chairman of Management Board (Mr. Elston), the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) and I met with these individuals and appointed our own representatives to work with the key interest groups. I would like to give members some additional background on these talks.

Prior to 1976, the teachers’ and public service funds were designed to be fully funded by contributions made in equal amounts by the employees and the government. In reality, however, full funding was not always achieved and the government, as plan sponsor, contributed additional amounts when deficits occurred.

The high inflation rates of the mid-1970s made life particularly difficult for retired persons. As a result, in 1975, the Ontario Legislature enacted a bill that gave 100 per cent inflation protection to teachers and public servants, for both those who were already retired and those still working.

Although inflation protection was applied retroactively in 1976, it was determined that no contributions would be sought from employees to pay for the inflation protection extended to benefits already earned. In other words, those were a charge against the consolidated revenue fund and they remain so today.

The legislation created separate superannuation adjustment funds for teachers and for public servants. The funds were based on matching contributions by the government and the employee of one per cent of pay. It was intended that the money going into these two funds, plus the interest earned, would cover the benefits for retired plan members as they become due. It was understood at that time that the matched contribution rates would eventually have to rise.

As long as the contributions to the superannuation adjustment funds from people working, taken together with the investment income, are larger than the indexation benefits paid to retired plan members receiving benefits, the funds are essentially solvent. However, our situation today is much different than in 1975. The number of retirees has significantly increased relative to the number of current contributors. The growth in the number of retirees will continue to outpace the growth in the number of contributors.

Looking ahead to the turn of the century, future taxpayers and contributors will face a rapidly deteriorating financial situation. Only two options will then exist: diminishing benefits or significantly higher contribution rates.

The question we face is whether to wait or act now. Financial experts believe that if a benefit is earned now, it should be funded now. Deferring the pursuit of full funding at this time would, in my view, be a serious mistake.

When I became Treasurer, I was made aware that the existing funding arrangements were inadequate and could not support continued 100 per cent inflation protection since the adjustment fund would run out of money within 20 years.

Both the Rowan and Coward pension reports of last year found that the cost of paying for inflation protection was being unfairly left for future generations of plan members and taxpayers. Both reports also recommended that the adjustment funds be merged with the basic pension fund since a pension is, in reality, one benefit. In addition, they proposed that the pension money be placed in diversified market investments rather than only government of Ontario securities and deposits, in order to earn a higher rate of return.

Given the potential impact of the Rowan and Coward recommendations, Dr. David Slater was asked to gather public comment and reactions. He concluded that current contributions and the resulting investment income are insufficient to secure full indexation of benefits. One of his key proposals was to make teachers and public servants full partners and joint trustees with the government both in administering the plans and in the sharing of future risks and rewards. I agree that this would be a preferable arrangement and this offer has been made to union representatives.

I also strongly believe that fiscal responsibility requires that our pension plans be placed on a sound financial footing, and soon.

The challenge now facing the government is to find a resolution to the pension issue that is both fair and fiscally prudent. To wait until the adjustment funds are exhausted would be unfair to the public servants and teachers involved. It would also be unfair to Ontario taxpayers.

The government has a serious commitment to these public sector pensions, both from a financial and moral standpoint. Even before any necessary adjustments are made, the government is contributing $750 million to these pension funds and directly to pensioners in this fiscal year alone.

We are also aware of the very human aspects of the pension issue. We know the practical concerns people have regarding pensions, most particularly when they have worked and contributed to these plans with the expectation of full inflation protection.

Throughout the process of research, opinion gathering and discussion, our aim has been to secure the benefits for a group of people who have made their contributions in good faith. Hand in hand with this was our goal of not imposing any undue additional burden upon Ontario taxpayers.

The government’s representatives on the working group have prepared a package of proposals that I believe would significantly reform the operations of public sector pensions. Unfortunately, those representing the largest number of employees and teachers did not find our proposals acceptable.

On the financial side, these representatives could not accept the increase in the matching contribution rates which, in our judgement and the judgement of recent pension studies, were necessary. At the same time, they also sought significant benefit improvements. Because of the financial commitment necessary to secure the existing benefit package, further improvements cannot be considered at this time.

The unions also wanted all pension-related decisions to be subject to binding arbitration. Billions of dollars are at stake in the management of these funds. As a matter of fact, this year it approaches $20 billion. We were willing to decide these matters as partners or even to discuss turning the funds over to plan member management, subject to the normal regulatory controls. What we could not agree to do was to abdicate our responsibility to both taxpayers and plan members by allowing such decisions to be made by a third party. We therefore could not agree to binding arbitration.

As a result, full partnership in the conduct of our pension arrangements is not possible at this time. However, I invite employee and teacher representatives to continue their involvement in this important area in the form of a more limited partnership for now. The legislation we hope to introduce this spring will keep the options of full partnership and member management open for the future.

I believe the legislation we plan to introduce will provide a solution to the financial problems without imposing an onerous burden on either plan members or the government. The pension benefits of our teachers and public servants are among the best in North America. These same benefits will be more secure when we take the steps necessary to fund these plans properly. The major principles on which the legislation will be written include:

1. The government will continue to act as sole sponsor and guarantor of the funds for now, on the understanding that future contribution rates will fully fund future benefits.

2. The plans will be fully funded and merged, so that there will be a single fund for Ontario’s teachers and a single fund for the public service.

3. The pension funds will be permitted to invest in marketable securities.

4. Full, 100 per cent inflation protection for all teacher and public service plan members will continue, as will the existing level of benefits.

5. To sustain the funding of future benefits, public servants and teachers will be asked to contribute about an additional one per cent of their pay. This increase is based on the future investment of the funds in the capital markets.

6. The government will match these contributions and fund the current deficits in the two merged funds.

7. The legislation will contain the improvements brought about by Ontario’s pension reforms.

I emphasize today, as I did to the Legislature last year, that pensions for people who have already retired would not be affected; nor would retirement benefits that have already been earned. We can now say that the security of those benefits will be enhanced.

I have no doubt that resolving these issues now is far preferable to waiting until the problem becomes even more acute. Fiscal responsibility demands that we do not leave a massive burden to be paid by future generations of employees and taxpayers.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION / INDEMNISATION DES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Last June I introduced in this House a bill to amend the Workers’ Compensation Act.

That bill, Bill 162 as members know it, proposes a number of significant changes to the workers’ compensation system in Ontario, notably the means of compensation for workers who in the future suffer a permanent partial disability as the result of a workplace injury. Those workers will be entitled to a dual award: compensation for any wage loss associated with the impairment and compensation for the impact of the impairment on everyday life. Bill 162 also, for the first time in this province, places a clear obligation upon employers to continue the employment of injured workers.

As well, the bill will require the provision of needed vocational rehabilitation services on a timely basis.

Bill 162, as I said last June, will result in a much fairer and more effective compensation system.

Dans les six mois qui ont suivi la présentation du projet de loi, des travailleurs blessés, des groupes de travailleurs, des employeurs ainsi que les membres de cette Assemblée ont eu l’occasion de prendre en considération et de faire part de leurs commentaires quant au contenu de ce projet de loi. J’ai également eu l’occasion de rencontrer de nombreux groupes partout dans la province afin de discuter de leurs soucis.

Those discussions which I mentioned have been most helpful. They have confirmed my view that the reform principles contained in Bill 162 are correct and will result in better workers’ compensation in the province. I have listened carefully to what has been said and, as a result of those discussions, I believe certain amendments to the bill are necessary to ensure that our original objectives are achieved.

The government will bring forward amendments to the bill during clause-by-clause consideration. However, today I would like to announce some particular changes that we will be proposing so that members of this assembly and Ontario workers and employers are aware of them before the commencement of the standing committee on resources development’s consideration of the bill.

We propose to amend the bill to give injured workers, for the purposes of determining the degree of impairment resulting from an injury, an opportunity to choose between utilizing a Workers’ Compensation Board-appointed physician or one selected by the worker from a government-appointed roster. This change responds to concerns which have been expressed regarding the importance of an impartial determination of this important matter.

We also propose to enable either an injured worker or an employer to appeal the WCB decisions with respect to noneconomic loss to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal. Ce changement permettra au tribunal d’appel de prendre en considération tous les éléments d’une demande d’indemnisation, incluant le degré d’incapacité résultant d’un accident survenu au travail.

Also, we will bring forward amendments to enable either an injured worker or an employer to appeal WCB re-employment decisions to WCAT. This change will ensure that all the provisions contained in Bill 162 may be referred to WCAT.

These modifications to the bill, I believe, will reinforce the central principles and thrust of Bill 162. They will help us achieve our desir