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

September 30, 1991

35th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

LOCAL GOVERNMENT WEEK

Mr Mahoney: As I am sure you know, Mr Speaker, since 1985 the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, in co-operation with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, has set aside a week each year to inform Ontario residents about the roles and responsibilities of local government.

Today marks the beginning of that week this year, 1991, and I would like to take this opportunity to personally congratulate, as the critic for Municipal Affairs for my party, all the men and women who work in local government, both elected officials and staff, who deliver the many good services to their community, whether it be schools, parks, recreation facilities, police protection, fire protection -- the list goes on and on.

I find it somewhat disconcerting, however, in light of this government's latest announcements and the last year, where it has given all kinds of difficulties to local government in the area of garbage and waste reduction. It is unfortunate that this government came into power with a promise for openness and yet the Premier refuses to meet with local mayors to discuss issues of grave concern.

Now, right at the beginning of this Local Government Week, the government is talking in terms of a referral on the Sunday shopping issue to the Ontario Municipal Board, which will just create havoc in local government for the residents, and of course more particularly in this case, for those men and women who have to work within local government. It is a shameful display by this government.

POLICE SERVICES

Mr J. Wilson: My statement is directed to the Solicitor General of Ontario. It involves a matter that I have raised several times publicly in this House and privately through letters and phone calls.

The issue I raise once again is the lack of 24-hour policing in areas of my riding of Simcoe West. Every time I have raised this issue, the government has hidden behind an OPP staffing report that was completed in the spring. But while the government stalls, criminals in the area have stepped up their efforts to burglarize communities that pay full tax dollars but lack 24-hour police services.

From January 1991 until the present time, the Stayner OPP detachment has reported 130 break-and-enters. Of these, 104 occurred when local OPP officers went off duty and went on call. These break-ins will cost ratepayers in my riding about $200,000. In the past 16 days, Ferris Enterprises in Singhampton has been robbed twice while OPP officers were off duty. The thieves took $23,000 worth of cigarettes and even had time to stop and have a drink of pop.

Here is a quote from an editorial in the Collingwood Enterprise-Bulletin of September 25 regarding the government's foot-dragging on this issue: "Governments are notorious for keeping people waiting. But to keep people waiting for answers when it may concern their safety and welfare is irresponsible."

This government must live up to its social obligations to the people of my riding. Law and order and the safety and security of citizens must be a top priority of this and any government.

WASTE REDUCTION WEEK

Mrs Mathyssen: I am glad to tell the House today that several communities in my riding of Middlesex are participating in Waste Reduction Week, which is sponsored by the Recycling Council of Ontario. Waste Reduction Week runs from September 29 to October 6. This week communities in my riding join the rest of the province in participating in a number of locally sponsored events being conducted to remind people of the three Rs: reduce, reuse and recycle.

One of the many events being planned is Zero Garbage Day. In the past, we have concentrated on recycling; now we must also focus our energy on reduction.

As the members can see by the T-shirt I am wearing, the theme of this year's Waste Reduction Week is "The Future Is Rs." Indeed, we can all help protect the environment by reducing the amount of waste that we generate so that it does not become a burden inherited by future generations. Mr Speaker, I am sure you will agree that the Recycling Council of Ontario and all the local participants, not only in Middlesex but throughout the province, should be commended for their hard work in arranging this week's activities.

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Mr Curling: Last week the Minister of Citizenship announced that $6.4 million would be allocated to the Ontario Human Rights Commission to eliminate the agency's 2,500-case backlog. The minister's announcement was surprising, given her previous decision to freeze the commission's funds and her statement that throwing money at the problem would not solve it. Still, as a preliminary short-term measure, this one-time injection of funds may indeed help reduce the case backlog.

Let us hope that in its zeal to deal with what had become a politically embarrassing situation, the government does not get so caught up in the statistics that it loses sight of the importance of seeing that justice is served in each individual case. It should be remembered that many of the cases in the backlog are there because of their complexity, and it is important that those assigned to deal with the backlog are not only experienced but also have a well-developed expertise with the Ontario Human Rights Code.

The minister's statement also promised a review of the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Human Rights Commission. This much-needed review should be independent and impartial. I am asking the minister and the Premier to refer the matter to an all-party committee of the Legislature to conduct public hearings and make recommendations, as has been recommended by the standing committee on government agencies.

SCHOOL BREAKFAST PROGRAM

Mrs Cunningham: Mr John Snobelen, chairman of the Hunger Project, reminds us that today marks the first anniversary of the World Summit for Children. It was the largest-ever summit of heads of state, where over 100 nations promised to set down plans of action by the end of 1991 to provide the basis for the healthiest and best-educated children on this planet.

As this nation debates the latest constitutional proposal, it would be easy for us to forget that every day 40,000 children in the world die of preventable causes. Children in Canada are going hungry and suffering neglect and abuse. It is estimated that one child in six in Ontario lives in poverty.

Studies have indicated that there is a relationship between hunger and the ability of children to excel at school. Recognizing this problem, Mr Ian Sorbie came forward and, working with children, teachers and administrators, established a breakfast program for the children at Roden elementary school in Toronto. Each day, 168 children receive a nutritious breakfast at a cost of $150 a day. He feels this experience can now serve as a model that can be replicated in other schools throughout the province. Establishing a breakfast program for elementary school children in partnership with the private sector is an initiative my party supports.

Given the fact that this is the first anniversary of the World Summit for Children, I would urge the Minister of Education to begin consultation to make these kinds of breakfast programs happen in our province.

CONSERVATION

Mr Abel: Southwestern Ontario contains a wide variety of flora and fauna that are found nowhere else in Canada. This region, extending from Toronto to Grand Bend and south to Lake Erie, contains vegetation similar to that found in the southeastern United States, and has thus been termed the Carolinian life zone. Exotic trees like the flowering dogwood, sassafras, sycamore, tulip tree and black walnut are scattered among the deciduous hardwoods and conifers more typical of northeastern Canada. It is the home of some unusual species such as the Carolina wren, the flying squirrel and the opossum.

Since most of the remaining Carolinian zone is under private ownership, the key to conserving important natural areas is to ensure private stewardship. In the region of Hamilton-Wentworth, thousands of acres of land consist of part of the remaining Carolinian life zone. The reason so much of this land is preserved, not only in Hamilton-Wentworth but also in the rest of the Carolinian life zone, is largely due to the support of a very special group of people: private land owners committed to preserving the natural features of their properties.

In recognition of their contribution to sound management, I ask that all members of the Legislature join me in thanking these people for their role in protecting and preserving our natural heritage.

CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE CONFERENCE

Mr Miclash: The annual fall meeting of the Northwestern Ontario Associated Chambers of Commerce concluded this weekend in Kenora. A working conference discussed 45 resolutions and adopted 33. Resolution topics covered small business and economic development, trans-portation, land use and resource management. Gathered in Kenora for this most important conference were 70 chamber members from 14 chambers across northwestern Ontario.

As most people in the House are aware, NOACC will be meeting with cabinet to discuss its resolutions later this year. A resolution of note dealt with land use and resource management. It recommended as follows: "The Ministry of Northern Development and Mines be the lead agency in a process to review and administer the uses and disposition of crown land in northern Ontario. The process should result in a policy which is coherent, sensible, reasonable and flexible."

Upon reviewing the chamber's work, I see a good number of such resolutions that will well represent the thoughts, aspirations and needs of many of my constituents. However, during a presentation on Saturday morning, Tom Corcoran, the provincial president of the chamber, indicated that the present NDP government is not paying attention to the needs of small business in Ontario. I agree with the chamber president that this government must listen to all people, and not just those private-interest groups that put it into power.

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr B. Murdoch: As a result of a meeting with community living groups in my riding, I would like to remind the Minister of Community and Social Services of a promise she made and has obviously forgotten. On December 20 of last year, the minister made a statement to this House advising members that she would reduce the significant gap in wages paid to workers in ministry facilities compared to wages paid to workers in community agencies. This would be done, she said, because "the government is committed to providing community agencies with the resources necessary to recruit and retain quality workers."

It was a lovely speech, and it gave the agency staff in my area hope that their dedication and efforts would be rewarded. But now they are convinced that the minister had no intention of following up on her promise, as in the almost 10 months since she made this commitment, nothing has been done to change this situation. Even the Minister of Health was quoted on June 24 as saying she was horrified by the inadequacies of the two groups.

When will the Minister of Community and Social Services acknowledge her words of December 20 and take action? When will she recognize the value of community agency workers, or is this just another typical socialist broken promise?

INTERNATIONAL PLOWING MATCH

Mrs MacKinnon: September 17 to September 21 marked the culmination of three years of hard work and dedication by an army of volunteers in Lambton county. Why, members may ask. The answer, of course, is the successful 1991 International Plowing Match. This is the largest farm equipment and machinery show in North America, with its plowing competitions, displays and collection of farm-related materials and products.

My hat is off to the plowing match committees for their dedication to making this the best-organized such occasion ever held in Ontario. I realize it is dangerous to mention individual names, but I would be remiss if I overlooked Mr Leonard McNeil, who as chairman guided this event and the project to the success it was.

For the five days of the plowing match, Lambton was front and centre, along with rural Ontario, and I am proud to have had an opportunity to highlight this great part of our province in Lambton county to over 180,000 people who attended. Next year this exhibit takes place in Victoria county, which is part of the riding of one of our colleagues. I thank everyone in the Legislature who attended opening day. Their support was much appreciated.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Mrs Marland: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order under standing order 31(a). This standing order is in our rules to allow ministers an opportunity to inform all members of this House on matters of importance. The Minister of Culture and Communications has made a mockery of this standing order today.

Instead of informing the House of her actions in regard to TVOntario, a matter which was first brought to the attention of this House by myself, she instead made her announcement in the media studio. It was my assumption that on a matter of such significance to the people of this province, who have a right to know, this minister would have served the courtesy to the members of this House by making her statement in this House. This shows a lack of respect for not only the rules of this Legislature, but also for all members of this House today.

The Speaker: To the member for Mississauga South, I appreciate her bringing this to my attention. The standing orders allow ministers the opportunity to make statements. It does not oblige them to make statements. The Speaker does not have any control over events which occur outside the chamber.

Hon Mr Cooke: Mr Speaker, I understand the ruling you just made, but I might just point out to the member that it is my recollection that the Minister of Culture and Communications last Thursday put the House on notice that the report was going to be released the following day and that it would be made available to the press and to the opposition parties. She made that statement in the House as a courtesy and out of respect to the Legislature, and I think she should be congratulated on the approach she took.

Mr Elston: Following up on the point just very briefly, it seems to me the government House leader has missed the whole point of the exercise that has just occurred in the media studio. Here we have one of the top administrators of government activity in the province who has tendered his resignation and there is no explanation, no indication in this chamber of how this chief public administrator has come to fall on a resignation letter. There is a requirement, because this has made it a matter of importance to the people of the province, that a full explanation be made here in the chamber, as opposed to it being made out in a media studio.

I can understand that it was courteous of the minister to tell us that the report was about to arrive last week on a day which was outside the sitting of the House, but here the resignation has arrived on her desk prior to the opening of this sitting of the Legislature and she owes it to us to explain why there was a resignation tendered.

Interjections.

The Speaker: We are obviously relaxed and ready for question period.

I appreciate the comments that have been raised by the Leader of the Opposition and the government House leader as well as the member for Mississauga South. I think members understand the standing orders well. However, the leader seems to have raised material that may indeed be the subject of questions for question period, which is now about to begin.

Mrs Marland: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: The government House leader just stood in this House and said that the minister had said in this House on Thursday that she would release the auditor's report on TVOntario the next day. In fact, her statement to this House was that she would release the auditor's statement when she was assured through the commissioner of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act that there was no risk to anyone by the release of that report.

The Speaker: Would the member take her seat, and with everyone's co-operation, we can begin question period.

ORAL QUESTIONS BUDGET

Mr Elston: By bits and pieces, we will gradually get this story filled in.

Perhaps what I could do is go back to my favourite minister, the Treasurer of the province, who by his own admission has been spot on. Last week he told us that his revenue projections are spot on, that he intends to keep his reckless deficit of $9.7 billion spot on, and he identified two culprits for us as being responsible for part of his overspending. He mentioned pensions and he also mentioned one other which escapes me -- firefighting, I guess, in the north -- as being out from what they had expected.

Since we have heard on the weekend through press reports that it is not hundreds of millions of dollars but probably over a billion dollars that he intends to cut from the over $9.7-billion expenditure level, can the Treasurer identify for us other problem areas of spending?

Hon Mr Laughren: I was interrupted at the very end of the --

Mr Elston: What other spending areas are getting him into trouble, welfare?

Hon Mr Laughren: First of all, I would not want to get into speculation on what was written in the tabloids over the weekend. However, I would simply say that what I said to the leader of the official opposition last week was that the actuarial shortfall in the pension plans was causing us heartburn, if you will, that there was an excess in spending on firefighting, that our social service case load was higher than we thought it was going to be, and finally, that there is an open-endedness to our health care system, as the member opposite knows better than most, I believe.

When you add up all the expenditure pressures, they do indeed come to several hundred million dollars, which is the reason, I think, that the leader of the official opposition would want me to state before all members of the House in more detail just what those pressures are, and I intend to do that on Wednesday.

Mr Elston: I wonder if the Treasurer can confirm to us that in fact he has a certain series of guiding principles which he is using to establish the cuts. Having confirmed that there are those principles there, will he enumerate those principles before he makes his statement on Wednesday?

Hon Mr Laughren: I am not too sure what the leader of the official opposition is fishing for. However, I do know that I am not going for the bait. I should tell the leader of the official opposition that we are concerned that we do not simply take a meat axe to the constraint program in which we find ourselves. We want to do it in keeping with the priorities of the government, because I think to do otherwise would be simply to mimic what has been done in other jurisdictions, and that is not our intention.

Mr Elston: All I asked the Treasurer to do was tell us exactly what series of parameters he was going to be viewing as he looked at the restraint exercise his government is going through. He has so far refused to tell us, first of all, the size of the problem, which he says he is going to tackle on Wednesday. He will not confirm that number to us. He will not tell us what parameters he is using to view the cuts and he is not letting us know the areas in which there are problems. If he is looking for help from us, he must share the problems with us and he is not doing that.

Having admitted that the budget he cast in April has been abandoned by himself and his colleagues, will this Treasurer tell us now what new types of goals he has established for the financial planning and expenditure controls in the province?

Hon Mr Laughren: I am pleased the leader opposite wants to share the burden, because we would like very much to share it with him. There has been no alteration in the principles under which we intend to govern this province. That has not changed from the budget that was brought down earlier in the spring. We intend to pursue those sets of principles.

I would say to the leader, however, that we thought at the time, and I still believe, there was not put in place the kind of mechanism that would allow government to look at the entire reallocation process in order to establish priorities, in particular for a new government, but for any government. I think that the leader opposite would agree with me, in view of the fact that his government had great difficulty in doing any kind of accurate forecasting, as is evidenced by the deficit last year.

Mr Elston: I will not agree with the honourable Treasurer on that point. We delivered a balanced budget the year before last. They took over and they did wonderful things with our budget last year, in addition to everything else. But let me return to the Treasurer.

One of the primary focuses of the budget, as indicated in April when it was delivered by the Treasurer, was that it was to stimulate the economic activity in the province, and one of the keystones of that was a whole of series of capital works. I wonder, after having looked at the $9.7-billion deficit that was forecast then, and now being told that he is not satisfied he can maintain that without taking some sort of actions, if he can tell us how many capital works in the public highways programs, including the four-laning of Highway 69, he has shelved.

Hon Mr Laughren: I assume the member opposite is talking about the anti-recession package. He did not quite say that. We are going to be doing an update on that for all members, as a matter of fact, because the last time I checked, I believe about 85% of the entire anti-recession package had either been completed, started or was about to start. That is of the total $700-million package. I think it would be contradictory for us to start cutting back on the capital expenditure program, especially as was detailed in the anti-recession package, at a time when we are trying to stimulate employment in the province.

It is our intention not to slash capital expenditures in the province. I think that would not be wise at this time.

Mr Elston: Having now heard that there will not be any capital programs cut during the speech which will come on Wednesday, as soon as the Treasurer gets his instructions from the Minister of Health -- Health ministers usually do tell Treasurers lots of things during the planning for economic expenditures -- can I be absolutely assured that the statement the Treasurer just made here that no capital programs will be cut as part of his cost-cutting exercise will in fact be delivered upon?

Hon Mr Laughren: To be fair, I think what I said to the member opposite was that I did not believe slashing capital programs under the anti-recession package was the right direction to go. I am not going to stand in my place and say that in that entire some $4 billion in capital expenditures every single one of them will be completed according to the

schedule we had hoped for this year. That is yet to be determined, so I am not going to allow the member opposite to paint me into a corner. If I want to paint myself into a corner, that is one thing, but I am not going to allow the member opposite to do it.

Mr Elston: This is an interesting conversation the Treasurer and I are having. First he says, "There will be no capital cuts." Then he says, "But I don't really mean that; there might be some someplace."

Mr Speaker, can I ask the question which is quite obvious? Can the Treasurer confirm to the House that his bureaucracy, that is, Treasury, is not involved in the final program planning, that in fact it is all being handled by the treasury board, which is newly formed but without legislative capabilities, and that in fact the treasury board bureaucracy, which is newly formed but without legislative capacity, is driving this whole exercise, thus leaving the Treasurer out in the cold on exactly what principles are being applied to the restraint program, how much the dollar figure is and what areas are in jeopardy?

Hon Mr Laughren: No, the leader of the official opposition is dead wrong. First, the treasury board legislation was brought before this House and passed in June of this year, so to say that we are not operating with legislative approval is factually incorrect. Second, I chair the treasury board myself, so it is hardly leaving me out of the picture when I chair that board. Finally, there is a set of principles or terms of reference which will guide all of the restraint program as it affects all the ministries. So it is simply not correct. The member is incorrect on every one of the assertions in his question.

Mr Villeneuve: I have a very important lead question to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. I see he is not here. I know he is in Milton and is supposed to be back shortly. I will ask to stand down my lead question until the Minister of Agriculture and Food returns.

The Speaker: Is there a second lead question?

Mr Carr: I will proceed.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Carr: My question is for the Solicitor General. The Solicitor General will know that we spent the summer going around and hearing from the public on the Sunday shopping issue and that significant portions of the province have said they will be open on Sunday. Notwithstanding the Premier's commitment to have a common pause day, we heard from Windsor, Collingwood, Thunder Bay, Kenora and parts of Kingston that they will be open.

Lo and behold, we get the amendments that have come through from this government, which say, "Any person who objects to a bylaw made by the council of a municipality under

section 4 may appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board." We are already looking at a backlog of between 12 to 15 months at the Ontario Municipal Board. At a time when we are talking about allocating resources, how can the minister justify to the people of this province lobbing more responsibilities on an already overburdened board?

Hon Mr Pilkey: The government is anxious to proceed to clause-by-clause so that we might deal with the bill and all its amendments and return third and final reading to this House as expeditiously as possible. Of course, I would seek members' co-operation in assuring that circumstance.

Not to belabour the topic beyond that but simply to respond to the question, under the amendments the Ontario Municipal Board will be asked to use its best efforts to try to hear appeals within 90 days so that in fact businesses that do receive the tourism exemption are not held up in an unnecessary fashion.

Mr Carr: The problem is when these boards and agencies come in. We talk about the rent review board. It sounded like a great idea when it came in, but lo and behold, it is so backlogged now it does not work and there is no justice. The fact of the matter is that if you ask anybody, all these well-intended programs that come in do not work.

Not only is the minister going to lob things into the Ontario Municipal Board, but one of the amendments he is bringing forward is that, "On the application of any interested person, the Ontario Court (General Division) may order that a retail business establishment close on a holiday." Again, talking about resources, we have a situation where in the courts now we have delays if you want to get a divorce. We have well over 35,000 cases being thrown out because it is clogged -- cases, I might add, that include sexual assault and drunk driving.

Lo and behold, what does the minister do? He throws more into an overburdened system and now we are going to be looking at a situation where resources are going to be channelled to try and deal with a problem such as Sunday shopping. Again, with the court backlogs out there, how does the minister justify putting resources into this particular program at this time?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I am anxious to debate the bill and the amendments, but as indicated, the amendments have yet to be moved in the committee. I look forward to appearing at the committee and staying with the committee to discuss any and all of these amendments in detail so that we might bring it to the House. At that appropriate juncture, I will be quite happy and pleased to do so and subsequently debate the item when the final amendments to the bill come to the House for final debate.

Mr Carr: Not only do they come in with these harebrained, crazy ideas, but they refuse to even stand up and talk about them. I can understand why. If I had brought in these crazy ideas, I would be reluctant to talk about them as well.

The minister is looking at all these different programs. He has heard from the public. Everybody on both sides of the issues from Thunder Bay to Peterborough to Ottawa said they did not like the legislation. Both sides of the issue said they did not like the piece of legislation. Now that the minister has come up with a couple of ideas and proposals, what is it going to cost the people? How much more is it going to cost as a result of these ideas that the minister is coming up with? How much is it going to cost?

Hon Mr Pilkey: As I indicated, I am anxious to debate amendments once they have in fact been placed. They must be placed before the committee in clause-by-clause. Those that are adopted will come forward to the House for open debate. I believe at that time the wisdom of the government amendments will be quite apparent to the member and to the public at large.

Mr Sorbara: The Solicitor General is entirely lacking in credibility with those answers. We simply cannot rely on them.

Hon Mr Pilkey: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I take some offence at the member saying my responses were inappropriate -- I think he used something much harsher than that. Is that permissible when the questions are --

The Speaker: If the Solicitor General would take a seat, I believe the member was questioning your credibility. Often members question each other's credibility and the validity of statements made. What would be more helpful would be if members would place questions directly to the ministers from whom they wish to have a response.

Mr Sorbara: Mr Speaker, I will take your advice on that. The point I was simply trying to make is that the Solicitor General, with respect --

The Speaker: Would the member place his question, please.

Mr Sorbara: It is difficult to believe what he says when he says what he says.

My question is to the Attorney General. As members know, two weeks ago the government indefinitely postponed this Legislature's consideration of its Sunday shopping legislation. Last Friday afternoon at 3:30, when most of us were in our constituency offices and most of the press had filed their stories for the day, the Solicitor General brought out his amendments responding to one month of public hearings where most people condemned the bill to regulate Sunday shopping.

Surprisingly, the amendment which was brought forward was to allow an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board. Maybe one person asked for that during the public hearings, and that is the only amendment we have had from the government.

As my friend the member for Oakville South suggested --

The Speaker: Your question, please.

Mr Sorbara: -- there is a 13-month delay at the OMB right now. When the government passes this legislation, every storekeeper who finally gets permission to open a store on Sunday is going to have to wait some 15 to 20 months before a final determination. In this economy that business will probably no longer exist.

The Speaker: Would the member quickly place his question.

Mr Sorbara: What specific steps is the Attorney General taking with the funding of the Ontario Municipal Board? He should not look to the Solicitor General, because the OMB is the Attorney General's responsibility. What steps is he taking to provide additional resources immediately to the OMB so that a storekeeper who is the subject of an appeal from a decision by a local council can get a decision expeditiously and inexpensively in these very difficult economic times?

Hon Mr Hampton: I think it is probably most appropriate that the Solicitor General respond to the honourable member's lecture.

Hon Mr Pilkey: Could I simply respond to the question by making two points? First, the amendment will in fact expedite the situation, which is what we want to do. Second, if both the members from both opposition parties who have urged that this matter get dealt with promptly are concerned with amendments that may cause delay, I suggest to them that if they will meet me and my colleagues at 3: 30 this afternoon in the clause-by-clause and co-operate, we might proceed to get this matter dealt with expeditiously and avoid any delays they are alleging.

Mr Sorbara: I am rather glad actually that the question was referred from the Attorney General, who has now abdicated his responsibilities for the OMB to the Solicitor General, because now in my supplementary I can address the question of credibility. The Solicitor General has said he is anxious to proceed with amendments to the bill. Yet the very reasonable amendments that we have put forward to make it somewhat easier for a storekeeper to get through the administrative morass he has created with this bill have already been rejected by him and his ministry and his government. There is no intention at all on his part to give reasonable consideration to the amendments we are putting forward.

The Speaker: Your supplementary.

Mr Sorbara: Although he is not responsible for the OMB, I ask him what additional resources he has requested from the government to provide to the Ontario Municipal Board and to the court system, because he has also allowed for an application to be made to the courts by an agreed individual. Will he please answer me specifically? What additional resources has he asked for for the OMB and the court system in order to handle the very significant increase in case load that will arise because of his bill and these unnecessary amendments? I want to know specifically what resources he has asked for.

Hon Mr Pilkey: The involvement of the Ontario Municipal Board will allow for sober second thought to applications of municipal bylaws for which exemptions are being requested. It is also my understanding that the Ontario Municipal Board will be able to deal on a very expeditious basis and without undue delay or concern. We simply do that in order to help expedite those businesses that are found to be appropriate to have the exemption under the tourism criteria.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Tilson: I have a question for the Minister of Financial Institutions. Recently the Toronto Star published a story that the government had spent $5 million to study the impact and cost of government-run auto insurance in this province, and this presumably resulted in the minister backing off from his promise to nationalize the auto insurance industry in Ontario. I will say that certainly I think the people of Ontario are, generally speaking, in favour of the policy the government put forward.

What it has done by spending this $5 million is something our party was telling it to do long ago and which it could have done for free. My question to the minister is, what did he spend the $5 million on?

Hon Mr Charlton: The member is correct that over the course of the last 10 months we spent approximately $5 million studying the question of automobile insurance delivery in Ontario. Part of the moneys was spent looking specifically at the question of moving to public auto insurance, the transition to get there and the impact that transition would have on the province, but in addition we also studied in depth the marketplace questions around which the former Liberal government claimed to have made its product and price decisions.

This government, as a result of the time, effort and money we spent coming to understand the auto insurance system in this province, is in a better position to ensure, through legislation, regulation and discussion with the insurance industry, that the consumers of this province get a product that is fair and equitable at a reasonable and affordable price.

Mr Tilson: With spending like the minister's, no wonder the Treasurer is going to have to cut several hundreds of millions of dollars. It is a complete waste.

My second question to the Minister of Financial Institutions is that while in opposition, the minister and his party were certainly in full support of full access to the courts with automobile insurance legislation. They were clearly opposed to the Liberal's no-fault auto insurance legislation, which took away full access to the courts by the public of this province.

On December 20, 1990, prior to the minister's appointment, Bill 20,

An Act to amend the Insurance Act, was moved by the member for Leeds-Grenville. It passed second reading. The intention of this bill was to reinstate full access to the courts to auto accident victims, including the right to sue for full economic loss. The minister voted in support of this bill on December 20. If it were brought forward today, which way would he vote?

Hon Mr Charlton: It is nice to hear a member of the opposition stand in his place and make the case for the $5 million we have just spent, which he said was a total waste of money. The private member's bill to which he refers from last December was a bill that was brought forward based on a number of things, including the emotional perspective of the member in question. We have taken the time to understand the marketplace in this province and have done precisely what we have said from the outset that we intended to do, and that is to pursue the question of how best to deliver fair and adequate compensation to accident victims in this province and how to put the best package in place.

Interjections.

The Speaker: We seem to be straying from that which we had agreed upon earlier: a calm and reasoned approach.

CHARITABLE GAMING

Mr Kormos: I first want to thank the member for St Catharines for his offer to me to take his slot in question period. As it is today, I do not need it. There may be a time in the very near future when I do. I hope I can take that as something of a rain check.

I rise today to ask a question because of my great concern. In fact, I am very troubled about the status of the Ontario Head Injury Association here in Ontario. Ray Rempel and his organization have been providing services and leadership.

My question is of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Ray Rempel and the Ontario Head Injury Association have been providing an invaluable service to people in this province for some years now. That organization, to the greatest extent, has been self-funded. The hard work of the volunteers and the people who are committed to its goals have enabled it to pay its own way. They recognize that there is going to be less and less money available from governments by way of grants.

They want the opportunity to sell break-open tickets, Nevada tickets, those modest fund-raising efforts that enable them to keep on providing the service. I want the minister to please tell us why the ministry persists in making it more difficult for the Ontario Head Injury Association to sell those tickets, rather than making it easier.

Hon Ms Churley: I am sure the member knows from his experience with the ministry that it is a little more complicated than that. I have met with the organization he mentioned, as well as many other organizations. I certainly understand their concerns and this government and I are very pleased about the contribution they are making. But as the member knows, there are thousands of organizations attempting to raise charitable funds by using break-open tickets for very worthwhile causes. That is why this venue has to be very carefully managed to ensure a level playing field for everybody.

The new gaming services act will address the over 50,000 organizations that are trying to raise money through this venue.

Mr Kormos: With great respect to the member, I happen to recall the minister's briefing note on this issue, and it is not thousands; it is a relatively modest number of organizations, including the Ontario Head Injury Association, the Canadian National Institute for the Blind and the Variety Club. These are responsible people who want an opportunity to legally and legitimately raise money to carry on the service they have been providing.

The fact is that the Ontario Head Injury Association is deeply in debt and risks literal foreclosure, and the fact is that if it is not there to provide that service, the government is clearly not in a position to fill the gap or fill the vacuum that is created.

When will the minister act, and I say promptly, to make sure the Ontario Head Injury Association can carry on with the fund-raising it has traditionally conducted, without the frustration being encountered from the ministry?

Hon Ms Churley: The updated regulatory framework will deal with this problem, as I said in my previous answer. The problem is that there are many organizations. There is a problem with oversaturation of the market. There are many more charitable organizations out there having the same problems and competing for fewer dollars. The reality is that we have to be fair.

I refuse to deal with this piecemeal, because if we make a regulation to deal specifically with break-open tickets, we are going to create another problem for somebody else over here who is doing just as valuable work raising money through other charitable means. That is why I want to deal with the whole issue in one big piece of legislation, so that everybody is playing on a level playing field.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Phillips: My question follows along the questions my leader was asking of the Treasurer. As the Treasurer knows, in any presentations we have had, and I certainly think in his budget, there are four key economic indicators that the Treasury officials use: the unemployment level, the CPI or inflation rate, job creation and gross domestic product development.

Based on my analysis, at least, of those four key indicators, all of the four things seem to be performing better than the budget called for. The unemployment rate appears to be running below his estimate of 10%. The CPI appears to be running somewhat lower than his estimate, albeit slightly, but none the less better. The job creation activity: I think he anticipated in the budget 184,000 fewer jobs; I think there are about 135,000 fewer jobs. His gross domestic product numbers are running somewhat better.

I think one of the components of the budget is the economy. Will the Treasurer confirm to the House that the economy year-to-date, based on the Treasury officials' estimate for the rest of the year on those four key indicators, actually is performing modestly better than he anticipated at budget time?

Hon Mr Laughren: Yes. I would stress that the operative word in the member's question, though, is "modestly." The improvement in the numbers he cites, which as I recall are virtually spot on, as the Leader of the Opposition is wont to say, is quite marginal and is not substantial enough to increase our revenues to the degree that would allow us to look after the increased expenditure pressures we are trying to cope with now.

Mr Phillips: The supplementary then follows obviously on that. The economy is performing slightly better than the Treasurer thought. This is the line of questioning my leader has been pursuing. The revenue, presumably, of the economy as it is performing will be spot on, as the Treasurer expressed it. Therefore, can we assume that the budget problem is solely related to expenditures? The economy is performing well; therefore the expenditure needs relative to the economy should be spot on.

Without being overly aggressive, can we assume that the out-of-control budget problems are a result of the inability of the government to control expenditures, not the economy but the inability to control expenditures?

Hon Mr Laughren: The member opposite uses an unfortunate series of words to spin together his question, which contrary to his views I find quite aggressive. I think the member opposite should understand, first of all, that he is right in the sense that it is the expenditure problems we are coping with. But to say they are out of control is not fair when the very actions we are taking are to ensure they do not get out of control.

It is not unusual that we have these in-year pressures. Any large organization has them. Other governments have had them as well. We are trying to be more open with the Legislature and with the people of the province by saying what those problems are. That is why on Wednesday I intend to make a full statement to the Legislature, to make sure it is not all done behind closed doors. We really believe that we have to share information. That is not what previous governments have tended to do, and we want to change that.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr Villeneuve: I go back to the lead question. It is my understanding the Premier will not be here, nor will the Minister of Agriculture and Food, so in their absence I will go to the Treasurer, the Deputy Premier, the man with the purse-strings.

The Treasurer is well aware that the crop crisis in Ontario is at its worst in many years. From Huron to Essex to Brant-Haldimand and throughout eastern Ontario, farmers are suffering very much. This major problem is being discussed today in this Legislature on opposition day and also in the standing committee on resources development.

The Treasurer has had money for many things, but he has not had very much for agriculture: a 3.2% increase in this year's budget over last year, compared to many larger increases in many other ministries. This is a basic industry in deep trouble. They are not crying wolf for nothing. He should have looked. He should have been there. He would have gotten experience. If he visits Essex county any time, he will see the drought. Let him visit the Niagara Peninsula. When will this government bring on some real assistance for our farmers, who are really suffering now?

Hon Mr Laughren: I appreciate the views of the member opposite. I know he shares our concern about the problems in the agricultural community, and he does not exaggerate them one little bit. I want to assure the member as well that the Minister of Agriculture and Food will be here for the debate on agriculture this afternoon, but he simply could not get back in time for question period.

I agree with the member opposite, and I would just ask him to be patient for a very short period of time and the Minister of Agriculture and Food will have a statement to make.

Mr Villeneuve: I appreciate that, and I heard in some of the news broadcasts this morning that the minister does have some sort of emergency assistance. However, there is an emergency across Ontario. Certain areas of Ontario have been hit with a double whammy. I speak of Essex and parts of Kent county, where indeed they have had a drought this year. They have had either a flood or a drought for the last three out of four years. That is not a usual situation, but that is the situation this year.

Will the Treasurer provide them with some additional assistance? Indeed the crop prices are down throughout Ontario, we know that, but that area has been hit by a double whammy. Will the Treasurer be using crop insurance? Crop insurance, as he knows, does not work when you get three bad years out of four, so will they who are in dire straits be getting something supplementary to the rest of the province?

Hon Mr Laughren: I know the member for S-D-G & East Grenville appreciates the fact that the problems in the agricultural community are not just in Ontario but are elsewhere as well. I can assure the member that the Minister of Agriculture and Food has been most aggressive on this issue in fighting for his constituents, the farmers of this province. I do not want to pre-empt what he will have to say, but I can assure the member that he is very much aware and will be making a statement which will contain some assistance.

Mr Villeneuve: Before the Minister of Agriculture and Food makes his statement for whatever the surprise, whether it is good or bad, I want to remind the Treasurer that de Havilland, for example, is receiving $151 million now and maybe another $150 million for 4,900 jobs. Those people are Canadian Auto Workers; for some reason they seem to have priority. Elliot Lake, $250 million for 650 jobs. We are not opposed to this; we are putting it in context of one of the very major industries in this province. Auto insurance: as was spoken of today, $5 million thrown away.

Civil service increase in salary: $512 million in 12 months, almost the entire budget of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. TVOntario. We could go on.

The Treasurer had dollars for all of those. We are looking for real support for one of the very basic industries in this province that provides, directly and indirectly, 20% of the jobs in the province. The Treasurer should remember that. What assistance, in light of what I have just said, will the Treasurer provide agriculture?

Hon Mr Laughren: I appreciate the views of the member, but I regret that he persists and other members of his caucus persist in playing one group of people who find themselves in unfortunate circumstances against another. I was, however, pleased to hear the member say that he supported the fact that this government provided assistance for people in Elliot Lake and Sault Ste Marie and Kapuskasing, and trying to do things in a more creative way rather than simply throwing money where there is a problem.

Mr Villeneuve: They have a union.

Hon Mr Laughren: If the member opposite is saying that if working people happen to belong to a union they should not get any assistance, let him stand in his place and say that. Let him stand and say that. The member is trying to have it both ways. He stands on his feet one minute and criticizes the fact that people who happen to belong to a union get assistance, then the next minute he stands and he says he is glad they got that assistance. I wish the member would get his story straight once and for all.

TVONTARIO

Mrs Marland: My question is to the Minister of Culture and Communications. In the minister's own words, in the statement which she chose not to share with this House today and gave in the media studio earlier at 1 o'clock, she said, "It is evident from the report that there have been excesses that are unacceptable to this government and to the people of this province."

Why has the minister agreed to allow Mr Ostry, the person who must ultimately take responsibility for these excesses, to stay on as chairman and CEO until after a conference on public broadcasting at the end of November? In my opinion, it is inappropriate that a person who has compromised public confidence in TVOntario be allowed to represent TVOntario at that conference.

I ask the minister, why is she allowing Mr Ostry to stay in his position as chairman and CEO until December 15?

Hon Mrs Haslam: Mr Ostry offered his resignation to me. I accepted his resignation, effective December 15. This allows TVO a time of transition, it allows Mr Ostry to attend a very important conference, and it allows time for us to find a replacement for him.

Mrs Marland: The minister has said also, in this same statement, "I will be requiring the vice-chair to report to me monthly about these matters." She was referring to expenses and human resources actions. The minister obviously has already bypassed the chairman, the same chairman she is going to continue to pay for two and a half months at $110,000 per year. I simply ask her, if she has already bypassed him by asking the vice-chair to report to her, then why would she continue to pay the chairman for another two and a half months? Why would she simply not appoint the vice-chair as acting chair in the meantime?

Hon Mrs Haslam: I can only reiterate that Mr Ostry did offer me his resignation, that it is effective on December 15. There were reasons which I have originally stated for leaving Mr Ostry in the position while we put a process in to replace him.

TAXATION

Ms Harrington: My question is also to the Treasurer. This morning on the 8:30 CBC news, I was quite surprised to hear a statement on behalf of the Greater Toronto Home Builders Association in which it claims that our government plans to impose a capital gains tax on people's principal residences. These Toronto home builders also claim that this was somehow buried in our Ministry of Housing discussion paper entitled A Framework for Ontario.

I need to know, does the government in fact plan to impose a capital gains tax on principal residences?

Hon Mr Laughren: I was surprised when I saw that in one of the Toronto tabloids as well, because I do not know where that story came from. But when I saw it, I went back and checked. I do not want to tease the bears over there, but I want to quote from a document I have heard them quote from time to time. This is what it says, "New democrats would deter real estate speculators by introducing a speculation tax on property that is not a principal residence." That was our position when the Agenda for People was written and it still is today.

Ms Harrington: With regard to the tax situation in Ontario, I understand the Fair Tax Commission is looking into all aspects of taxation, including this type of situation. When would the tax commission be reporting to this House?

Hon Mr Laughren: I get questions about the Fair Tax Commission from all over Ontario, so I appreciate the question from the member for Niagara Falls. I have asked the Fair Tax Commission to come back to me on any number of tax questions during the next three years. However, we are not waiting until the end of three years to take action on some of the tax measures. Two of the tax measures we asked them to fast-track and report to me on, hopefully this year, are the corporate minimum tax and the land speculation tax, which was the tax implied in the member's question. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify that matter for the member.

ONTARIO HYDRO RATES

Mr Conway: My question is to the Minister of Energy. Bill 118,

An Act to amend the Power Corporation Act, contains within it a dramatic departure from Hydro policy as we have known it in Ontario for the past number of years. The dramatic departure I want to focus on today is the directive power. The bill introduced by the NDP provides for a cabinet, an executive council, to issue any kind of directive, that the directive must be acted upon by the Hydro board and any costs associated with that directive, irrespective of whether that directive has anything to do with the generation or distribution of electrical power, must be passed on to the electrical consumers.

Can the Minister of Energy explain to the hydro consumers of Ontario exactly what the rationale is for so dramatic a departure and for so sweeping a directive power as that which is contained in Bill 118?

Hon Mr Ferguson: Members of the House ought to know we are not breaking new ground here, this is not new ground being dug by this particular government. What the members opposite ought to look at is the legislation that their federal counterparts put in place to establish Petro-Canada as a crown corporation. What we are proposing here is absolutely no different than what their Liberal counterpart friends did in Ottawa in establishing Petro-Canada.

Mr Conway: I have read the Financial Administration Act of Canada and I have also read the Power Corporation Act, as it has been and as the minister wishes to amend it. I can assure the honourable member that what he has just said does not square with reality either in Ottawa or in Ontario.

I repeat: I ask the minister, on behalf of the new government, to explain how this kind of sweeping, unfettered directive power -- which has no legislative oversight, I might add, something quite noticeably lacking in the bill -- accords with any kind of principle of accountability. Hydro ratepayers across the province want to know why they should pay the kinds of costs that this kind of directive power might impose upon them.

Hon Mr Ferguson: The purpose of the amendments to the act is very clear. It is going to strengthen the relationship between this government and Hydro in the future, as well as future governments. The main goal and objective and purpose of the amendments is not only to strengthen this relationship but to ensure, unlike in the past where Hydro very often used the back door in dealing with the government of Ontario, that in the future they will be using the front door in dealing with the government of Ontario.

LAND REGISTRATION

Mr Arnott: My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. It concerns her plan to close the Arthur land registry office later this week, an office which has been serving the people of Wellington county for well over 100 years, and incidentally which is located less than 200 yards from the house where I grew up.

Opponents of this office closure have filed an application with the Ontario Court (General Division) seeking a declaration from the court that the minister's decision to close the registry office is invalid. My question is this: Since this matter is now before the Ontario Court, will the minister await the court's findings before closing the Arthur land registry office?

Hon Ms Churley: I have certainly heard about the review that has been asked for. I would just like to point out today once again that this was a cabinet decision made some time ago, and that there was --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I imagine the member for Wellington would like to hear the response. He is unable to do so because of a number of his colleagues. Would the minister conclude.

Hon Ms Churley: The decision was a difficult one. An in-depth analysis was made, and as I pointed out before, we are saving the taxpayers of Ontario $1 million a year plus $8 million in capital costs. I might also point out that in most parts of Ontario there is one land registry office per county, in the county seat, and that is what we are doing here. In Arthur the plans are still in place to close that office.

Mr Arnott: That reply only underlines the minister's utter disregard for those concerned about this issue, which borders on contempt. Last week the minister showed blatant arrogance by refusing to acknowledge the importance of the work of the standing committee on general government, which held hearings on the registry office issue last July -- incidentally, not one presenter to that committee indicated support for the minister's decision -- by refusing to delay the closures until the committee makes its recommendations. Today she is saying that the courts in Ontario do not matter either.

How can the minister justify her contempt for the work of her colleagues on a standing committee of this Legislature, and now her total disregard for fairness and the court process in Ontario?

Hon Ms Churley: I do not think anything I said today or on other occasions would in any way indicate that I have contempt for rural areas of Ontario or the court system. As I pointed out before in a question a couple of days ago, although I was unable to attend the standing committee hearings because I was not informed of the date until after plans were made, I did --

Mr B. Murdoch: You were not informed?

The Speaker: Order, the member for Grey. Has the minister concluded her remarks?

Hon Ms Churley: I did indeed pay careful attention to the comments that were made to the standing committee. I have reviewed again the entire situation and upon the review, I have still come to the same conclusions, for at this time in Ontario it is important to rationalize this system for the taxpayers of Ontario.

CONSUMER PROTECTION

Mr G. Wilson: My question is also to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I am sure the minister will agree that the marketplace is much more complex than it used to be. I have heard from some of my constituents, and I am sure this is an experience common to many of the members here, that they are often intimidated by the legal jargon they find on contracts for things as simple as cable TV or even renting a car. I wonder if the minister can tell the House what is being done to make sure that our constituents know what they are signing and what responsibilities they are undertaking.

Hon Ms Churley: As the member knows, my ministry is preparing a new consumer code to replace the earlier consumer legislation. A key element of that new consumer code is to require that all consumer contracts be written in plain, clear language, and that is to help the vulnerable consumer, to make sure that people are aware of the implications of what they are signing. I may add that the new code itself will be written in plain language.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr Cleary: The Minister of Agriculture and Food indicated last week that he will soon be making an announcement of additional assistance for Ontario farmers. The minister is aware that the net income stabilization account program would provide assistance to livestock, fruit and vegetable farmers who are not covered under the gross revenue insurance plan program. The minister knows that the payment under the NISA program could be made quickly this fall. The minister also knows that provincial funding of NISA this year would automatically trigger additional federal funding under the terms of the program.

Why will the minister not reverse his government's refusal to fund NISA this year as part of his fall farm assistance package?

Hon Mr Buchanan: NISA would address some of the concerns across the farm community. There are other pro-grams and there are other concerns that need to be addressed. We hope to be able to address all those concerns, not simply the NISA program but some of the other major issues as well in the farm community, and we will make an announcement on that very soon.

Mr Cleary: If the minister does not agree with the opposition arguments, perhaps he could talk to the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. The federation is holding a meeting here in the Macdonald Block at Queen's Park on October 16 in order to pressure the Premier and the minister to finally meet face to face on crisis issues affecting agriculture. Will the minister make a commitment today that he and his Premier will meet with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture to hear the concerns of farmers about the province's lack of commitment to the agricultural industry?

Hon Mr Buchanan: I would like the member to know that I have met with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture from many counties. We met with the county groups. I would also like the member to know that just as recently as noon, I met with the president of the OFA to talk about the farm crisis, along with people from Essex county as well to talk about the drought situation in the province. We have had meetings and discussions with the president of the OFA and we will continue to have ongoing consultations as we look at addressing some of the serious concerns.

ONTARIO STUDENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Mrs Cunningham: I have a question -- it is going to be two questions, but I will ask in a different way -- for the Minister of Colleges and Universities.

I was encouraged when the minister's government announced last April that he would undertake a comprehensive review of the Ontario student assistance program. His April 23, 1991, news release stated that the review would be completed by August 1991 so that the changes could be implemented for the 1992-93 academic year.

Last Wednesday I met with Laurie Kingston, the chair of the Ontario Federation of Students. She expressed her concern that the timing of the minister's announcement on changes to OSAP has slowed significantly and gave me a copy of a letter from his deputy minister, Dr Bernard Shapiro, stated that the minister will now be accepting submissions until October 15, 1991. When will the minister convene the final meeting of the general advisory committee on OSAP and what is his new time line for completion of the review?

Hon Mr Allen: There is no revised time line. We did in fact complete all the review portion in terms of the steering committee's work. All the information we gathered in that review was put together into a document which then, of course, was fed out again to the community and the universities to respond to. We have a deadline of October 15 for that feedback, and shortly after that date we will be calling the steering committee into place to review the proposals that will be coming from the ministry in response to what we have heard back from the review and the proposals that were contained in it.

BUDGET

Mr Elston: Mr Speaker, on a point of privilege: If I may rise and correct the record, I had suggested that the treasury board bill had not been passed. I was corrected by the Treasurer. I wish to apologize for suggesting otherwise. It received third reading on June 24, 1991, and has been proclaimed. In fact, royal assent was done in June and in August the royal proclamation. The people in treasury board do have full range in this cutting exercise and the fact that the Treasury bureaucrats are excluded is a problem the Treasurer will have to deal with.

PETITIONS ST JAMES ROMAN CATHOLIC SCHOOL

Mr Carr: I am pleased to table a petition signed by approximately 1,000 concerned residents of Oakville which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas St James Roman Catholic School has a 35-year history of extensive service to the Oakville community and St James has provided quality education and a focus for the development of numerous communities, particularly of new Canadians,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly as follows:

"For the urgent personal attention of the Minister of Education to provide significant improvement to our vital community school, St James, through the allocation of $1.9 million for an addition/renovation."

RESIDENTS' ALLOWANCES

Mr Cooper: I have a petition presented to me by 102 residents of Sunnyside Home in Kitchener. It is to the Parliament of Ontario, Queen's Park, Toronto:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Residents in homes for the aged receive a comfort allowance each month of $112. Out of this amount, residents must purchase a number of items and services both discretionary and non-discretionary. Residents must purchase their own eyeglasses, clothes, shoes and toiletries. Residents must pay for their own dental care including dentures. Residents must pay for all their hair appointments. Also out of this amount residents may purchase cigarettes, alcohol, gifts for families, transportation, ie taxi charges, telephones, cable TV, and if anything is left over, entertainment.

"There has not been an increase in this amount for at least six years, not since 1985.

"Through this petition we hope to let the Ontario government know we need an increase. If we received 5% per year for the last six years we would now be receiving $150.09 per month. We feel that our comfort allowance must be increased to $150 per month retroactive to January 1991 and we must receive a cost-of-living increase each year following."

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr Elston: I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas grain and oilseed farmers in the province of Ontario are experiencing the most severe shortage of cash flow in the history of the industry;

"Whereas the government of Ontario has failed to pro-vide sufficient cash-flow assistance to farmers during the transition from old ad hoc programs to new safety-net programs in order that they may meet their financial obligations;

"I/We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the government of Ontario provide an immediate 1% contribution to NISA -- net income stabilization account -- for Ontario producers and waive the one third producer premium deduction with the Ontario grain stabilization program and take other necessary measures to ensure the survival of the family farm in Ontario."

This is signed by some 1,500 people from Ontario, and I have affixed my name to the petition.

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

Mr J. Wilson: I am privileged to rise today and present a petition to the Legislature of Ontario. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the Queen of Canada has long been a symbol of national unity for Canadians from all walks of life and from all ethnic backgrounds;

"Whereas the people of Canada are currently facing a constitutional crisis which could potentially result in the breakup of the federation and are in need of unifying symbols;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to restore the oath to the Queen for Ontario's police officers."

That is signed by some 100 residents of my riding of Simcoe West, from Wasaga Beach, Collingwood and New Lowell.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr Carr: I am pleased to table a petition signed by the residents of the Oakville and Burlington area which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to ensure that our elected officials work to preserve and protect the environment of Ontario for the future of the children of our province."

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ARMENIAN COMMUNITY CENTRE OF CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1991

Mr Farnan moved first reading of Bill Pr68,

An Act respecting the Armenian Community Centre of Cambridge.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

OPPOSITION DAY: FARM INCOME

Mr Villeneuve: On behalf of the member for Nipissing and in his absence, may I have agreement of the House to move this motion on opposition day special debate?

Agreed to.

Mr Villeneuve: Thank you. This is a most important debate.

Mr Villeneuve moved, on behalf of Mr Harris, opposition day motion 1:

That this House, having witnessed the serious deterioration of crop prices through 1991, particularly in grains and oilseeds, and realizing that the new federal-provincial support programs are not in place for the 1990-91 crop year, further realizing that the Ontario government has refused to participate in the NISA program this year, and recognizing that Ontario farmers require the same commitment from their provincial government as farmers across Canada receive from their provincial governments to create a more level playing field, observing that consultations with farm groups have not yielded necessary emergency aid, and recognizing that drought conditions in southwestern Ontario have compounded an already desperate farm income situation, and also recognizing that Ontario agriculture has been neglected as a priority by the government, calls upon the Premier and cabinet to participate in the NISA program for this year and to introduce further measures to give Ontario producers at least the same protection for 1990-91 that they will have under the new safety net programs, in order to meet the commitment made by agriculture ministers at their meeting in Regina in March 1991.

The Speaker: Does the member have opening comments?

Mr Villeneuve: I also ask the indulgence of this House to have not only the opening remarks but also the wrapup remarks, as if the motion were my own.

Agreed to.

Mr Villeneuve: This is a rather sad day to be debating a situation that has been coming to the fore for quite a number of weeks and indeed months. The writing has been on the wall regarding --

Mrs Mathyssen: Years. Ten long years.

Mr Villeneuve: The opposition parties are saying, "Ten long years." I have been in this Legislature for seven years and have never seen the prices we have now. I can tell the members opposite that when we consider inflation and cost of input, farmers at this particular time are getting a price 30% lower than in the Dirty Thirties, the Depression time. Opposition members can say 10 long years all they want. Never has agriculture been hit as hard as in the last 12 months, 30% below the Dirty Thirties' prices when adjusted. They can say 10 long years all they want and try to pass on the responsibility which is now theirs but, whether they want it or not, it is now theirs.

As I mentioned in my lead question to the Treasurer, in the absence of the Premier and of the Minister of Agriculture and Food, this government seemed to have many millions of dollars for what it perceived as its agenda. Indeed, when they were fighting this election campaign last year they made promises, particularly in southwestern Ontario, and we did get many elected MPPs from the rural parts of southwestern Ontario.

I hope the members have read some of the letters to the editor in the last edition of Farm and Country. There is an eye-opener there for them. As time goes on I will quote a few just to make sure of reminding them they are the government and that they promised agriculture they would be different from the Liberals and the Tories. They were going to be looking after the problems of the farmers, the basic industry of Ontario, but a 3.2% increase in the budget is certainly not looking after the farming community very well.

I will just quote a little bit here from an editorial by John Phillips, someone everyone reads in the rural community. "Where's Bob Rae When He's Needed?" That is the question. That is the headline. The initial statement says, "When inflation is taken into account, grain and oilseed prices run 30% below those of the Dirty Thirties." Those are not my statements. Those are accurate statements from a very respected farm writer, John Phillips. The members opposite can say 10 years all they like. They can try to dump the responsibility, but it is their baby. They are in the driver's seat; they have the levers of power.

I am pleased to see the Minister of Agriculture and Food back from Milton. I knew he was in Milton today and was hoping he would be back in sufficient time to answer the question. The Treasurer provided a reply. It was not an answer. He was effectively looking for the minister. He said the minister had a great deal of clout at the cabinet table. We are waiting to see from the minister's announcement this week just how much clout he does have.

These are tough times for agriculture. I will quote a little more. Hugh Zimmer, another highly respected farm writer, stated today, "we have Premier Bob Rae dodging the issue of giving extra aid to income-strapped farmers. So there's no help for farmers, but he finds millions of dollars for civil servant pay increases."

For the record, Ottawa gave Queen's Park a rebate on Ontario's share of the 1991 gross revenue insurance plan contributions. So what did our NDP government do? They pocketed the money rather than adequately funding the net income stabilization account, NISA, which should go hand in hand with the GRIP program. The Minister of Agriculture and Food knows that. I just wonder how many people who sit with him on those benches know that.

Farmers are not crying wolf for nothing. The Ontario Farm Debt Review Board case load will likely increase by 33% this year and we have already had a large number of farmers in financial trouble having to go to the board to attempt to negotiate some sort of settlement. We are not looking for across-the-board write-offs; we are simply looking at an opportunity to make financial ends meet.

It is rather sad that the minister did not come to Lucknow several weeks ago. I had the occasion to be there with one of my colleagues and we had one of the minister's parliamentary assistants there, the local member for Huron, and we had the Leader of the Opposition there that night. But 1,000-plus farmers of several generations, people in their mid-50s, expressed the same situation, the same problem. They are just looking over their shoulders and wondering whether they will be able to put in a crop next year.

We are not looking at a sector of the population that is not productive; we are looking at a sector that spends money when it produces and spends money when it has income. They have a ripple effect, a multiplier effect, of about seven within the community they represent.

I had occasion to visit Leamington last Wednesday. We have a desperate situation down there. Those farmers were hit with a double whammy. Not only did we have a major reduction in the price of their commodity, but we had a major drought to compound the problem. Many of these people who contract to some of the tomato processers were not even able to meet 50% of their contract, which normally would have been easily met and had a surplus. The grain corn was being harvested at about 30 bushels to the acre. In Essex county you can expect an average of 130 bushels to the acre, so what do you do?

There it was and they were harvesting it. They had no choice. It is the same thing with the soybean crop and whatever else they are growing.

This is a major catastrophe. Not only will we see farmers go down, but we will see entire communities go down unless this government is prepared to help. It is not like putting money in the hands of other sectors. I speak of many ministries. With other sectors the money does not have the multiplier effect it has, and traditionally has had, in agriculture in rural Ontario. I say to the minister that we must address this very serious situation and it must be addressed shortly.

Farmers at Lucknow said that on October 1, which is tomorrow, they would nail the mailbox shut and let nothing in and nothing out. What does that do for those very proud farm families and to the community at large? It is nothing but very negative. As the Treasurer deliberates and has deliberated, and if he has the power he said he had today, I hope he will be able to come up with an across-the-board package to cover not only the below-depression prices of grain and oilseeds, but also those hit with the double whammy of drought.

I also had occasion to visit the tender fruit-growing area of Niagara. Our peach growers had 40% less tonnage this year and 25% fewer dollars per ton. That is a pretty serious situation. They are not making ends meet, yet we did not see great reductions in the produce they produced to the consuming public. During the summer's very disastrous drought and low crop prices we have had very little recognition, leave alone support, from the government. The government sat back and did very little for the Niagara area farmers as they submitted reports and waited for some help.

Farm leaders united in July to declare a state of emergency in Ontario agriculture, an unprecedented declaration, a state of emergency, something never seen before in Ontario. Conditions now are in many ways worse than they were at any time. I can recall the early 1980s when we had very high interest rates. I personally paid 22% and I am sure many people in this Legislature and our farmers out there paid the 20%-plus interest. However, we had commodity prices that were reasonably good. We were faced with grain corn at $140 to $160 a ton. That was reasonable.

With a little careful management you were able to manipulate. But now we have a situation where tipping a ton of garbage would cost almost double what you can get for a ton of barley, oats or grain corn. It actually makes no sense at all, yet we have the ministry, in the name of farmers and agriculture, spending big dollars to protect farm land. I agree with protecting farm land, but first of all we have to protect the people who own it and try to make a living from it.

My colleagues and our leader have seen at first hand the major problems facing agriculture. We regularly hear from producers and the message is no different. The message is: "We're in trouble. We're prepared to go to Queen's Park. We're prepared to go to Parliament Hill 10,000, 20,000, 30,000 strong if need be, because we've got second-, third-, and fourth-generation farms going down the financial pipe." It is very sad. This is a proud group of individuals and right now they are on their knees, and not because they want to.

Government has followed policies which give more to everyone else, but agriculture is left behind because we do not seem to have many people on the government benches who understand the real problem out there. I go back again to the Treasurer's statement today that the Minister of Agriculture and Food has a great deal of power at the cabinet table. We are watching and the minister should come out with all horses pulling.

The other new announcements have been of national support programs. There has been nothing this government has done for farmers that can be seen as major strictly made-in-Ontario plans for farmers. I live in an area along the Ontario-Quebec border and it is very difficult for me to explain to my grain producers in Lancaster township, in Lochiel township, in Glengarry and Stormont or wherever that their colleagues across the line in Quebec are getting $180 for every metric ton of corn they sell, and yet we have to settle right now for less than $100.

We look at the so-called agriculture task force of the Ontario Round Table on Environment and Economy. That is an interesting one. The task force is chaired by a Toronto politician. The NDP originally decided to exclude any farmers from membership on this task force. Then, when they could not support that position any longer, they decided to refuse suggestions from the Ontario farm organizations for nominees.

They have had one public consultation, a $30-a-head breakfast meeting in downtown Toronto. They visited some Ontario farms, but in two days of visits, do members know what they visited? Each and every farm they visited was a so-called organic farm, right to the parliamentary assistants; I gather they were there. Does that send a signal or a message out to Ontario agriculture? We are waiting for the answer.

North America and even the western world could not be fed from organic farming. The idea may sound really good to some of our consumers. The reality is that it would be very difficult to feed ourselves, let alone provide exports.

They have already prepared their final report. Even though some task force members have not seen it, it is out there. This report calls for higher taxes on inputs in order to finance the government's participation in the NISA program. The ignorance and inhumanity towards farm families shown by the government task force is, for lack of a better word, an insult to rural Ontario and to our farmers.

The government promised at least $150 million and possibly up to $300 million for de Havilland. In dealing with depressed crop prices, Ontario farm families have seen about $124 million. I remind the minister that we have 60,000-plus farm families out there, a lot of people who contribute to the economy and to the communities they live in. They are very proud people. How can the minister equate the little bit of assistance they are getting compared to some of the ones I have outlined?

Last week in the standing committee on resources development, the honourable minister, who is here today, explained that the federal offer to help with NISA participation came too close to the Treasurer's budget, so Ontario did not participate. It is a rather poor reason, that the Treasurer's

schedule has a higher priority than the needs of 60,000-plus farm families across the province.

Ontario is lagging far behind in helping its farm families, yet Ontario is Canada's largest agricultural producing province. Look at the price that eastern Ontario corn producers are receiving as compared to Quebec. That will tell members exactly where this government's priorities are.

Essex county, as I mentioned, had a very major drought problem -- I know the minister is listening, I know he was down there -- and we even have some of them here today.

Interjection.

Mr Villeneuve: What did the Minister of Transportation say?

Hon Mr Pouliot: Of course he is listening and he is concerned.

Mr Villeneuve: Thank you. I am glad to see that the Minister of Transportation is also concerned, because I know the Minister of Agriculture and Food did meet these people earlier today, and they had an excellent presentation. These are not figures that were pulled out of the air. These are facts and figures from commodity groups and they will hold water, so to speak, in spite of the fact that they were short of water in Essex county this year.

The ethanol industry has to be looked at. I know the minister and I have worked on that and have discussed it many times. Now is the time; the time has never been more opportune. We have had occasion to look at some of the background papers from his ministry and it certainly seems it is coming on to the front burner. Let's not hold it back; let's get it out there. It will provide additional markets for grains. It will clean the environment. It will provide jobs. It is win, win, win.

I will not touch on the disposal of dead animals for long. There is a major problem across Ontario with our livestock producers right now: No one is picking dead animals up. The minister knows that. We have discussed that on numerous occasions. We are still waiting for further direction.

In summation, Ontario's agricultural crisis is being discussed throughout rural Ontario and within the hallowed halls of Queen's Park, and indeed in this very Legislature today. Now is the time for action. Tomorrow will be too late. The line is now drawn in the dirt.

Hon Mr Buchanan: First, let me say that I think it is appropriate that we are discussing agriculture here today. I accept the member's analysis that agriculture is in difficulty and requires some assistance, and the government intends to act upon that.

I do want to inform the member and all members that agriculture is going to be a key sector in this government's economic renewal strategy. The government members recently had a retreat. We talked about economic renewal, and it is important for everyone to realize that agriculture will be part of that renewal. In fact, in his opening statement last Monday, the Premier discussed the fact that rural communities and agriculture had to be an important component of economic renewal.

A strong provincial economy depends on a very healthy agricultural and rural economy. The production of food is a very basic activity and requires assistance if the marketplace is not going to provide the necessary money for farmers to continue in production.

I believe, in spite of what the member suggests, that the serious difficulties facing farmers are well known, certainly by the members on this side of the House: the low commodity prices, the low yields, the surplus grain stores, the severe drought, the effects of free trade and the fact that government support programs do leave some gaps from time to time. This affects many producers. Even the fruit growers down in the Niagara region, as the member mentioned, have been affected by the cheap fruit that was dumped into Canada. The grains and oilseeds producers, as the members says, are suffering from very low prices. Some of this is being skewed by international trade policies.

I want the member to know, though, that I did tour the province this summer. In fact, I visited over 25 different counties and districts in July, August and September, in all regions of the province, to get a handle on what the situation was in agriculture. I have seen the drought at first hand. I have listened to the plight of farmers and farm families in their homes, in their kitchens and in meetings across the province. My parliamentary assistants have also been touring the province and meeting with farm groups, and have a good handle on what the problems are out there.

I should also note that my colleagues who form the rural caucus are well aware of the situation and certainly have been keeping me informed and promoting within caucus the importance of agriculture for this government.

In light of all that, and having assessed what the difficulties are, I do intend to make an announcement some time this week which will address the pressures and the concerns of agriculture and the rural communities across this province. We will continue to work with farm leaders and organizations in order to put together a package which we hope will address all of the concerns in the farm community.

We realize there is a serious cash-flow problem, and that needs to be addressed. It is not just drought. It is not just grains and oilseeds. It is a severe cash-flow problem that needs to be addressed in the best way possible. There are some payments that are going to be flowing in the near future that have already been announced. Crop insurance is expected to put about $60 million out to producers across the province. For grains and oilseeds, we managed to negotiate with the federal government to get an interim GRIP payment of about $93 million.

Producers say that is 1992 money and they need some assistance for the 1990-91 crop. I accept that challenge and intend to address that, but I did want to note for everyone that this interim GRIP payment will flow $93 million this fall.

In terms of a made-in-Ontario program, I would like to point out the farm interest assistance program. We put $50 million out that has been well received across the province by families who are in serious need.

I want to clear up some misconceptions, however, about Ontario's participation in the NISA program. We are participating in 1992. We want to take advantage of the long-term benefits of NISA for farmers. The NISA program will allow farmers to contribute to the program in good years to cover the bad years. This was intended to be a long-term safety net program. NISA, in my estimation, is not going to solve the short-term cash-flow problems.

The federal government is making an attempt. They modified their program, which I guess is a good gesture, but they gave me 48 hours in which to respond on whether I could be in. I was unable to make that decision in that time frame, and the budget was about two weeks away when the program was modified and put to me. I want everyone to understand that there is a reason we are not in NISA. The only province that is in at this time is Saskatchewan, which had announced it would participate in the program before the federal government modified the program. None of the other provinces is participating.

I do not think it would be fair if the federal government unilaterally decided to use the NISA program as a delivery mechanism for short-term assistance. NISA is not an appropriate third-line defence program. I hope the federal government will flow the funds as quickly as it is promising, but I am not too reassured by what I have seen. The application forms are out now. They are substantial in size and in length; in fact, many farmers are going to have to pay substantial amounts to have the NISA program application filled out. I am not too optimistic that this program will deliver the kind of assistance all of us want.

We have made a commitment to participate next year -- we announced that earlier -- and will allow farmers to get whatever support the federal government can get out this year.

I welcome this debate and opportunity to set the record straight on what this government has done and what we are willing to do, and announce our commitments and continued concern for agriculture and the rural community. I hope that all parties and political and farm leaders can work together for the good of the people and the economy in agriculture in rural Ontario.

Mr Elston: I was interested in this debate coming today because I wanted to hear from the members of the government party. I am not so much interested, I guess, in what is said on this side of the House, because there have been certain commitments made both by us and the third party with respect to trying to move this issue along.

I am concerned, however, that the Minister of Agriculture and Food has just indicated that he is going to come forward later in this week with something that will address "all of the concerns" that seem to be afflicting the agricultural community at the moment. I am concerned because it leaves some kind of misconception, I think, about how well this government is going to be able to address the things that ail the agricultural community.

I would be the first to say that there are many complex issues over which this minister does not have full and single jurisdiction. However, having said that for him to come into the House and say that he is going to have an announcement which will touch on "all" the concerns seems to me to be leading people to be too much impressed by what they should hear from this minister later in the week. In fact, Mr Speaker, you might have had the Minister of Agriculture and Food saying "a few" of the concerns of the agricultural community, because there are, in fact, far too many for him to manage the way he ought to.

The other thing I wanted to make an observation about was the fact that the minister has made what is probably going to be read as a political statement. When is the minister going to play the part that he plays so well and make a statement that comes clean and clear to the people who are in the agricultural community? He was, I think, first sold to the agricultural community not so much as a politician but as a people person. He has converted himself quite quickly away from what he originally told the people he was, and that was a man of the people.

He has to stop giving these political speeches that are written for him by somebody else, conceived by somebody else -- somebody else who shelters him from going face to face into meetings with men and women who are suffering the experiences which he knows about from handwritten reports but not so much close up, on a personal basis.

Interjection.

Mr Elston: The member for Lake Nipigon always likes to interject, because they never let him talk over there. They have hidden him away somewhere. He never has the ability to stand and get the floor because his party has prevented him, in fact "stifled" him, in the words of a TV character popular in my earlier days. I must say that I suspect the member for Lake Nipigon is going through some kind of conniptions right now as he and his buddies cut and slash at some of the programs which he himself must hold dear.

Back to the subject matter: The Minister of Agriculture and Food knows he has to do better. He knows he has to be the person who comes face to face with the men and women in the agricultural communities who can help him shape the policies and the programs that are needed to give them relief. He has to get away from these political speeches, he has to get away from his political handlers and he has to do the groundwork. He has to work at making sure the contacts are real and that he is not spirited away by some of his handlers, the names of whom of course are well known in the communities. Even some of them are well known to me, because I used to run against some of them in other elections.

I would hope that when we have this announcement later in the week he can deal with all of the concerns. I know he cannot. What he has to do is create real expectations of actually performing the tasks he sets for himself. In other words, he has to live within reality and his government's fiscal management and he cannot lead people to believe that the impossible will be delivered to them at the end of this week.

If he can do that and get away from his political handlers, he will have done an amazing amount of good work for the farm communities, because then they know they have somebody with whom they can become a real partner. I have been spending a fair bit of my time in the communities telling them that this minister is that sort of individual, but he has to do it and he got to make up his mind that he will do the work that he himself knows he has to do personally.

Mr J. Wilson: I am very pleased to join the discussion today regarding the farm income crisis in Ontario, and I applaud the efforts by my colleague and leader, the member for Nipissing, for tabling this motion for emergency debate.

This opposition day motion highlights the enormous difficulties faced by farmers in this province with regard to making ends meet. The member for Nipissing's motion also serves to demonstrate both our party's commitment to agriculture and the failure of the NDP government to respond to the current crisis. But most important, the opposition day motion brought forward by the leader of the Ontario PC Party also sheds light on a tremendous tragedy that is currently unfolding. In a nutshell, this tragedy pits the farmers of Ontario against insurmountable odds in the face of an Ontario government that is extremely apathetic.

In August, when I met with Mr John Morrison and Mr Paul Wardlaw of my riding, and more recently with Mr Joe Keresturi and a group of farmers in the riding of Brant-Haldimand, I saw at first hand the human element that is very much a part of this tragedy.

Unfortunately, these honest, hardworking farmers are cast in the role of victims within this tragedy. There was a time when working the land and gathering the harvest was one of the most noble and distinguished professions. We appreciated farmers because they provided something we could not live without, that is, food on our tables. But today, when the farmers need us most, some people, and some people in this Legislature, are prepared to turn their backs on them and let them fend for themselves.

The members in my caucus have not forgotten farmers, and we are not prepared to forsake the invaluable contribution they make to the quality of our lives and to the sustainability of our society.

When I met with Mr Morrison and Mr Wardlaw and the members from Brant-Haldimand, one theme kept being repeated. Their pained looks betrayed the singular sentiment that the dream of the family farm is quickly becoming a nightmare. Farmers who are facing the worst crisis in their history are being hung out to dry by a government that pledged to bring relief to debt-ridden farmers.

Who is to blame? It is not the farmers. Ontario farmers are as efficient and as competitive as any in the world, but Ontario farmers are being asked to compete against other provinces and countries on a playing field that is profoundly tilted against them.

By now every member in this House is aware and should be aware that subsidy levels for Ontario farmers are substantially lower than in other Canadian provinces and in most other developed countries.

Here is a quote from a brief that was submitted to the Ontario Minister of Agriculture and Food. It was submitted by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the Ontario Agricultural Commodity Council, the Ontario Corn Producers, the Ontario Soybean Growers' Marketing Board and the Ontario Wheat Producers' Marketing Board: "We can compete against Ontario farmers. We cannot compete against other national and provincial or state treasuries without comparable support from our governments."

The equation is simple for this government. Either it supports Ontario farmers or it does not. Either it responds to the income crisis that has battered our farming community or it does not.

Getting back to my meeting with Mr Morrison and Mr Wardlaw of my riding, their message to me was short, sweet and uncomplicated. They called on the government of Ontario to waive the one-third reduction on 1990-91 payments under the Ontario farm income stabilization program, to provide a 1% contribution to the NISA program for Ontario crop producers for 1990 and for a modification of the floating price option under the 1991 crop insurance program for grain and oilseed producers.

It is unconscionable for this government to expect farmers to function while prices are plummeting and operating costs are escalating.

Quoting further from the brief that was submitted by the Ontario farm organizations to the Minister of Agriculture and Food: "And unless corrective action is taken immediately by governments, many of these farmers will not be around to take advantage of new safety net programs next year, or, alternatively, they will enter 1992 in such a desperate financial condition that the new programs will not prevent their ultimate demise."

My leader, the member for Nipissing, has, with this motion, called on the Ontario government to join the fight to preserve agriculture in this province.

With this motion, we are urging the NDP government to assist farmers to help remedy the bitter taste left in their mouths by a litany of government betrayals: betrayals that include the $124-million shortfall in promised government support for 1990-91; betrayals such as this government's initial reluctance to join NISA and its refusal to participate in NISA this year, and the ultimate betrayal of this government that pledges to support farmers yet falls silent when the need is greatest.

That need is right now, as my colleague for sand, dust, gravel and East Grenville so eloquently explained to this Legislature and to members of the government.

The facts are clear. There has been a drought in south-western Ontario. Prices for grain and oilseeds have bottomed out. Operating costs for farmers are continuing to increase, while realized net farm incomes are lagging well below that of 1989 levels. Market receipts from the sale of crops are predicted to drop by over 3%.

NISA will kick in for 1991-92, but nothing is available immediately. This government must begin to rethink its priorities. Ontario cannot exist without a viable and productive agricultural sector. Thousands of jobs and dreams are hanging on this government's decision.

I quote further from the brief by the Ontario farm organizations for the Ontario Minister of Agriculture and Food: "It is also a question of jobs" -- and the NDP government should be particularly interested and attentive to this point -- "One job in five in Ontario depends on food and farming. Are governments willing to let these value added jobs go down the drain, as well as the future of Ontario farmers?"

The ball is in the NDP government's court. I say to the Minister of Agriculture and Food that now is the time to send a positive message to the farmers of my riding and all of those ridings in Ontario. Farmers are hurting, I say to the minister, who is not in the House at the moment to hear my remarks. That is unfortunate, because you would think the Minister of Agriculture and Food would be interested in all members' comments dealing with the farm crisis, and it is extremely disappointing that he is not here.

Interjections.

Mr J. Wilson: It is absolutely pathetic. But Mr Speaker --

The Acting Speaker (Mr Farnan): Please take your seat. I think it is customary, and the member should be well aware of this, not to take notice of a member's presence or absence. We all know that all of the members, including ministers, have responsibilities, and sometimes they draw them from the House. Indeed, on another occasion the member may find that he himself has to leave the House, so I think it is advisable, for the orderly running of this assembly, that we obey that tradition and not make reference to the absence of members.

Mr J. Wilson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would hope the absence of the member who was referred to is not an indication of this government's interest in agriculture. This is an emergency debate, and every member of the House should be here for something as important. None the less, I am prepared to discuss not members' absences but to stick to the facts in agriculture.

I will wind up by echoing remarks made by my colleague and our critic for Agriculture and Food that now is the time for this government to address the crisis in agriculture, to sit down, sharpen its pencils and make significant announcements, not just the pappy political announcements it is so capable of doing but significant announcements that really and truly help the farming community in our province. Farmers are starving in my riding. This government can go ahead and bail out all kinds of unionized plants, but the people who put food on our tables are the farmers in our communities. They deserve this government's support and they deserve that support now.

Mr Johnson: I am very pleased to hear that the Minister of Agriculture and Food has an announcement forthcoming. Although I am not apprised of the details of the announcement, it makes me feel somewhat better, understanding the serious conditions that are facing the farmers in this province.

I do not support the motion of the leader of the third party. I have heard some discussion of the NISA program. I understand it was brought to the Ontario government at a late time, and I also understand, and I think farmers would certainly understand, that it is not unlike a farmer going to a processor and the processor saying to the farmer, "Sign this blank contract; we'll get to the details later." That is what the federal government did to the government of Ontario, and the members opposite would most assuredly agree that is not the way governments make contracts together.

For that very reason, I cannot support this resolution. I think the minister has made it very clear that he is concerned, and indeed farming is a priority in the province. We still have a Minister of Agriculture and Food, and the minister has been around the province this summer.

We have global conditions that have made farming a very difficult occupation, I guess one might say, but we know too that the climate and the weather have not boded favourably for farmers across the province. There are indeed farmers in my riding of Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings who have suffered as a result of the drought of this summer. I was speaking this past Saturday to Elmer McFaul, who runs Town Line Farms in Wellington. He is concerned about the situation the farmers find themselves in.

He certainly understands the need to meet the environmental standards required by the province, but he said it has made his farming operation somewhat more difficult. He says in time, and given the opportunity to get fair market value for his produce and given an opportunity for better conditions for growing, he will survive, and that makes me feel good.

Mr David Harrison from Harrison Foods in my riding has been in to my office. He too is concerned, and his operation, because of other reasons, may be downsized.

I understand, and it is clear now, that Cobi Foods is leaving my constituency and that has made it particularly difficult for farmers in my area. Farmers who have had horticultural crops that they would have sold to Cobi Foods unfortunately no longer have a place to sell or a place to have contracts for their produce, and because of this they find they are having difficult times at this time.

Why did Cobi move? Cobi has moved because it has been bought out. At least they have rationalized their organization, because ultimately what they want to make are profits and ultimately what they want to do is operate in a situation that profits them. What they have done is rationalize their operations. To do that and to have to do that has been largely because of global effects, global trade.

Other countries subsidize their farmers. They may not call it directly subsidizing, but nevertheless in some way they have subsidized their farmers. We have global trade to concern ourselves with. We know the value of produce such as grain and oil seeds is down markedly. On April 29, when the Treasurer brought in his budget, we did not know there was going to be a reduction as dramatic as there was in the price of the produce.

Mr Villenueve: The federal government knew. They offered you money and you took it.

Mr Johnson: The member says the federal government knew. I guess they were keeping it a secret.

Mr Villeneuve: You took the money and said the farmers won't get it.

The Acting Speaker: When he was speaking, the member for S-D-G & East Grenville had the full attention of the House. It would be appreciated if we could carry on the debate introduced by the member in question. If he would refrain from constant interjections, it would add to the quality of the debate.

Mr Johnson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It does make it somewhat difficult to concentrate on exactly what one is going to say when one is continually being badgered by the opposition.

Our government inherited the fiscal situation we have to operate in. It was not one of our own making. Given the difficult economic situation the province finds itself in, we have not forgotten the farmers. In fact, we understand that later this week the Minister of Agriculture and Food is going to make an announcement that I expect will be very positive and will help out the farmers in this province.

I must say I cannot support the resolution that was presented by the opposition here today.

Mr Ramsay: It is a great pleasure for me to rise in my place today to enter this debate that has been brought forward by the third party on its opposition day. I am pleased to be able to participate in the debate, which focuses attention on an industry in this province that sadly lacks that focus and attention. I applaud my colleagues in the Progressive Conservative Party for bringing this forward today.

However, I must add the caveat that I am having a little difficulty in serving agriculture today as I am also on the standing committee on resources development, and as a result three weeks ago put forward a resolution in that committee so that we could bring in farmers, people from the land, people from the agrifood industry. That is going on right now, so after my remarks I will be returning to committee room 1 in the Legislative Building, because right now as we speak we have farmers from Kent and Essex counties speaking before the resources development committee for the people at home.

It is comprised of representatives in this House from all three parties, as we are very concerned about the agricultural situation in Ontario today. I will be getting back to that in a minute.

I must make a comment in regard to the comments made by the previous speaker, the member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings. It seems to me that when a member of this House stands up and starts to bemoan the loss of food-processing jobs and says these companies are only there for profit, we have a bit of the germ of the problem here. Unfortunately many members on the government side do not quite understand how business operates. If we cannot make the agrifood industry and the agrifood producers and processors in Ontario profitable, they will be steamrollered over by the companies in the rest of the world.

With the new free-trading blocs that are forming around the world, we will be steamrollered by cheap food coming into Ontario. It is imperative the government work with both the processors and the producers to make sure we can produce food in this jurisdiction of Ontario as efficiently as possible.

What is happening is that our traditional agricultural base is being challenged today in Ontario. As I am sure many members of this House realize, Ontario, being extremely well blessed with soil and weather conditions and incredibly efficient producers and great research and development in the agrifood industry, produces over 200 different commodities. Just to give a comparison for people who are not as familiar with the agrifood industry as many in this House are, the state of Michigan, which shares the same latitude as us and is a neighbour of Ontario, only produces 80 different commodities.

Ontario is a world leader in agricultural production. It is an absolutely incredible jurisdiction for agriculture.

But as other jurisidictions are being allowed free access into the markets of Ontario, driven by our consumers who want products year-round on their grocery shelves, what is happening and what we are finding is that the traditional base of 200 commodities is being challenged. I think what is going to happen in the future of Ontario agriculture is we probably will not be producing 200 different commodities in Ontario. We will probably find we are not as highly competitive as some jurisdictions in all the commodities we produce, so sadly, we will probably see a restructuring, a rationalizing of Ontario agriculture.

But we will be pursuing and continuing to grow and process those commodities that we do well, that we can do the very best in the world. We can do that.

As an example, what we are probably going to see is that it might be tough for Ontario to compete with California, let's say, to produce tomato solids. Having the Mediterranean-type climate that California has, it is probably the best place in the world to grow tomatoes, so articles such as ketchup and paste and the concentrated forms of tomato products may not continue to be grown here as much as they have been in the past.

But because of the challenges of transportation, I am sure we will have a very viable tomato juice industry in Ontario, as it would make sense to be grow tomatoes in Ontario to produce products in 48-ounce cans for Ontario and the rest of Canada. This rationalization does not mean we are going to be denied a fair share of agricultural production in the world. In fact, we will be changing the direction of some of the products we produce.

The question here today, though, somehow posed at this government, and to be fair at all governments in the history of this province and this country is, how does government assist this particular industry? The question may be addressed and may be asked, why does government have some sort of special relationship, as we all as Canadians know it does, with agriculture? I think the reason for that is because most of us feel it is imperative that as a sovereign nation we develop, as much as possible, a level of self-sufficiency. It seems to me for a country to be saying it is a freestanding country on its own, it should have the ability, or close to it, to feed itself.

I think this is why government and agriculture have been partners, especially in this country and in countries around the world, and why probably any ag minister today in any country would probably say what this ag minister today is saying. The agrifood industry is absolutely vital to the citizens of every country in this world and even though we have freer trading in the world, it is imperative that we have a base of self-sufficiency of food production in Ontario.

Yes, we can have freer trade and maybe some commodities might some day be fully supplied from outside of Ontario. I would not like to see that situation develop. For all the different political upheavals we see around the world, we would be putting our food supply at threat. Maybe more important, for environmental reasons, we would not want to put our eggs in one basket. We would not want to say that the American Midwest, which has the capacity to grow cereal grains for this country and its own country, the United States, should be doing that, because what if they have a tremendous drought in the breadbasket in those midwestern states of the United States? What happens to our food supply?

Environmentally we should make sure we can produce as much food as we can, and so it becomes a government question. The business of agriculture becomes a question for the state, unlike any other business government is involved in, and so year after year we start to wrestle with this. We as people elected in a democracy start to wrestle with the concerns of the whole agrifood industry. Up till now what we have come up with are only short-term solutions. We tend to be reacting -- of course, speaking as the ex-Minister of Agriculture and Food, I include myself in the very same position -- to the demands of the agrifood industry on a crisis basis. Therefore, we tend to react on an ad hoc basis.

What I am proposing is that for today we have to continue to do that. I would like in my heart of hearts to see, and I will certainly help the minister of agriculture today, work on some long-term programs. I think farm financing is essential. We need to be working on that. I have some ideas I wanted to work on that I would like to share, but today we are talking about a cash shortage. We will have to try to find a means to inject some cash into this industry so that this industry can continue and be strong in the future.

Mr McLean: I am pleased to rise today and speak on this opposition day resolution in this House emergency debate with regard to agriculture. I think the timing is right. The problem farmers are facing is there and I believe the debate today will be most stimulating in this House. We all know the problem farmers are facing, especially the grain and oil seed farmers. Grain and oil seed prices are running at about 30% below what they were in the Dirty Thirties, so to speak.

The current crisis in agriculture is not because Ontario farmers are inefficient or unproductive. There are not large surpluses of the products produced on Ontario's farms. Subsidy levels for Ontario farmers are remarkably lower than in other Canadian provinces and far lower than in most other developed countries. Ontario's farmers can compete against other farmers, but they cannot compete against other national and provincial state treasuries without comparable support from their own government.

New safety-net programs, such as the gross revenue insurance program and the net income stabilization account, will offer the expectation of reasonable income support in the future for grain and oil seed producers. But this is little comfort to the large numbers of farm families facing a desperate situation in 1991, because they are confronted with the inability to protect themselves from creditors who are expecting near-term payment for their cropping expenses.

But the major flaw with GRIP and NISA is that payouts for the 1991 and 1992 crop years will not be forthcoming until late winter or early spring of next year, and it will probably end up being late spring of next year. How are many farm families going to survive over the next 7 or 8 or 10 months? It will be very difficult. The answer lies in special payments for the current period. This calls for an immediate response from the Ontario government. This Wednesday the minister will probably announce a piddling little announcement of about $20 million, which will not be effective for anyone.

It is interesting to note that $576 million is the total budget for the Ministry of Agriculture and Food in one year, a 3.2% increase over last year. It is interesting to note that the almost 6% given to the civil servants' increase in pay salary was approximately $512 million. Would it not probably have made common sense to have given them 3% and the farmers the 3% extra? That would have amounted to some $200 million. Obviously the Minister of Agriculture an