Hansard Transcript 1985-Nov-28 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Rae: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I know the House would want to spend a few moments sharing my personal sadness and the sadness of our caucus on hearing the news this morning that Max Saltsman had passed away in hospital after a short and very courageous battle against cancer.

Max was my predecessor as Finance critic for the New Democratic Party in the House of Commons. He was elected in 1964 in a byelection in which his campaign manager was one of my predecessors here, Stephen Lewis.

Max was a maverick. He was an iconoclast. He was a very courageous man. He was a free thinker in many respects. He did not toe any party line, particularly the line of the New Democratic Party. But he was a great friend to all of us who liked to share his companionship and his sense of fun and dedication to the people of this country. He was a great Canadian nationalist, and he played a very active role in the questions around foreign ownership and in the work of the Committee for an Independent Canada.

Max Saltsman also served this province, not in a way I would have liked to make possible, but he did serve on the Inflation Restraint Board. It was just a few short weeks ago that I got a call from the chairman of the Inflation Restraint Board, who said Max had just told him he was suffering from cancer of the liver and he did not expect to be alive much longer.

Upon receiving that information, of course, I phoned Max and arranged to go around to his house to see him. The day before I went to see him he had held a press conference in which he had told not only those he was working with but everyone else as well that he was very ill. He got a lot of publicity on that day, and I jokingly said to him as I went to his house, "Max, you have been getting a lot of press lately." He looked at me, smiled and said, "You know, Bob, a lot of people would die to get this kind of publicity."

It was the kind of humour and the kind of courage he showed in the last few days of his life that I shall remember. I shall never forget the conversation I had with him in his house, during which we talked about many things. We talked about the future of social democracy. We talked politics. We also talked a bit about life itself.

Max Saltsman showed a lot of courage in facing death, something that baffles and bewilders all of us. I sometimes think our culture has tried to do to death what the Victorian culture tried to do to sex: to deny it is there. Max showed tremendous courage in looking death straight in the eye and saying he was ready. He died this morning in hospital.

I want to take this opportunity to say farewell to Max Saltsman publicly and to say we salute his courage, decency, iconoclasm and fellowship.

Mr. Barlow: I would like to join my colleague the member for York South, who just spoke about Max Saltsman. Max was a former member of Parliament who represented federally the riding I represent provincially. He represented Waterloo riding, which later became Waterloo-Cambridge. He served for a good number of years before voluntarily retiring from the federal House. Prior to that he had served on city council in Galt and on the Galt Board of Education.

When Max joined Parliament, one of his more famous efforts was to suggest that the Turks and Caicos Islands become part of the Dominion of Canada. Unfortunately, he was not able to see it through.

Many years ago, during one of the federal elections, I ran into Max at a local drive-in restaurant and told him we were moving into an old house that had a fair bit of history associated with it. It had been associated in one way or another with several different religions. We had been gathering artefacts from different religions, and I said we had nothing for the Jewish faith. Within a couple of days, Max knocked at the door and presented a menorah to my wife and myself. That was the kind of person he was. He did not forget his friends. I counted Max as one of my friends.

Max had intended to run in the most recent municipal election to represent Cambridge on the regional council. I think he was the first person to announce his intention to run. Then at the press conference to which the member for York South referred, he told the public he would not be fulfilling that commitment to run for regional council. The reason was his imminent death from cancer of the liver.

I would like to join with other members of the House in recognizing the contribution Max Saltsman made to the riding of Cambridge and to all of Ontario and Canada.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I want to join the leader of the New Democratic Party and the member for Cambridge in expressing on behalf of the government our condolences to the Saltsman family on the death earlier today of the former member for Waterloo-Cambridge.

For the past 10 or 12 years, I have counted Max Saltsman as a good friend. He was a former teacher of mine. When I was a student in the undergraduate faculty of Waterloo Lutheran University, Max Saltsman used to teach a seminar in Canadian government and politics, and I was one of his students. I agree very much with the words of the leader of the New Democratic Party, who indicated that Max was an iconoclast. He was a free thinker in the world of party politics, and that was certainly to his credit.

Just a few weeks ago Max called and wanted to have lunch. We had our last visit in this very building about three or four weeks ago at a very friendly and rather lengthy luncheon at which he talked widely about his experiences in public life.

On my own behalf and on behalf of my colleagues in the government, we mourn the passing today of one of the happy warriors of this business of politics. I have considered it a great honour and privilege to have counted Max Saltsman a very good friend over these past number of years.

2:10 p.m.

ANNUAL REPORT, PROVINCIAL AUDITOR

Mr. Speaker: I advised the House I would be tabling a report, and I think I should do it because a lockup has been held outside. I beg to inform the House that I have today laid upon the table the annual report of the Provincial Auditor of Ontario for the year ended March 31, 1985.

PREMATURE DISCLOSURE OF COMMITTEE REPORT

Mr. Andrewes: I rise on a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. Last evening I became aware of a newspaper article suggesting a report would be tabled in the Legislature today from the select committee on energy regarding the committee's recommendations to the government on the future of the Darlington nuclear generating station.

I am obliged to inform the House, as chairman of that committee, that the members of the select committee on energy have not authorized the tabling of any such report and that media comment on the committee's recommendations at this stage is purely speculative. In circulating draft copies of material to committee members, I asked specifically that the material be kept confidential until such time as the committee could meet to review it and reach agreement on the substance of its report.

I feel the privileges of members of the committee, and indeed of members of the Legislature, have been offended by this unfortunate action, and I ask you, sir, to remind all members of their responsibilities to the Legislature, so such incidents might be avoided in future.

Mr. McClellan: I was planning to rise on this point of privilege as well, Mr. Speaker. This is the second time in about three weeks that a report has been released to the public before it has been made available to the members of the House. In this case the document released was a draft paper that was part of the committee's in camera discussion. I ask you to rule that this is a matter of privilege and to refer it to the standing committee on procedural affairs and agencies, boards and commissions.

If the practice continues, I see very little point in having any committees hold any hearings in camera. If people want to make documents available to the public, there is no point to in camera proceedings. We are going to have to determine very soon whether honourable members can be relied on to treat confidential documents in a confidential way.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to add to what my House leader has said by saying directly to the House that this is not only a question of committee reports. I read with great interest of the first-contract legislation in the Toronto Globe and Mail, in the Canadian Press wire copy and in the Toronto Star. In the case of CP, they not only had a copy of the legislation but also had a copy of the minister's statement and were able to quote from what the minister was going to say.

We in this party, if I may put it bluntly, take not judicial notice of this, we take political notice of this. Leaks happen, and they do not happen by accident, and we intend to govern ourselves accordingly.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, as a member of that committee, I want to register that I too feel my privileges have been abused. This matter should be cleared up. It places all of us who are on that committee under suspicion, and that is not a very pleasant position to be in.

Mr. Sargent: As a member of the committee, I want to say there is not a hell of a lot in it anyway. It is not that good.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure the member for Grey-Bruce has something to say on the point of privilege.

Mr. Sargent: I rise on a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, if I can get away with it.

On behalf of the countless farmers and small businessmen who have been put out of business by the corrupt practices of the chartered banks, the case of the member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville) and the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce is only a small tip of the whole iceberg.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Sargent: I am involved in this, though.

Mr. Speaker: I hope you are coming to the point of privilege that is on the floor regarding the leaking of the report.

Mr. Sargent: I want to talk about the whole mess.

Mr. Speaker: I say to the member for Grey-Bruce, if he wants to discuss this point of privilege he is in order to do that.

Mr. Sargent: This is a case of attempted theft and fraud on behalf of a chartered bank in my area some months ago. It is a problem we all have to deal with eventually.

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate that, but the matter you are discussing has been sent out to the standing committee on procedural affairs. It is under discussion in committee now.

Is there any other member wishing to make any comments on this point of privilege? If not, I would like to reserve time for judgement on this case. It is very similar to the previous one; I would like to see where that stands with the committee. I hope I can come up with some suggestion to tie it all in together. I will reserve my judgement for a few hours.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

ANNUAL REPORTS

Hon. Mr. Eakins: It gives me pleasure to table the 1984-85 annual report of the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation and the 1984-85 annual report of Ontario Place. It gives me added pleasure to indicate that I will table a French version of the ministry report before the end of next month.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Mr. Grossman: I have a question for the Minister of Education. This morning the Progressive Conservative Party and its caucus contacted more than 50 public school boards across this province with regard to the directive issued by the minister and his staff to withhold from those public boards almost $300 million in government funding for secondary school students.

In essence, the directive to the boards stated nothing more than that the cheques they were expecting to arrive next week were simply not going to arrive and were not being sent out by the government, supposedly because of the recent court injunction with regard to separate, not public, school funding.

I know the minister will be aware that those schools badly need that money to continue to pay their bills. He may be aware that those schools and the school boards have had to apply for bank loans to get them over the next period. They are all holding emergency meetings right now, essentially because of that directive issued without explanation or assurance.

The minister has effectively thrown the public secondary school system into chaos, so we heard from 50 public school boards this morning. Can the minister explain how he allowed this to happen?

Hon. Mr. Conway: Very easily. Surprisingly, the Leader of the Opposition does not have his facts straight. What has happened is this. Because of the reasons contained in the judgement of Mr. Justice Potts last Monday, I have taken the advice of the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), who has made it very clear that the court order that will flow from those decisions will require some clarification. We are in the process of seeking that clarification at this very moment because, as the Leader of the Opposition would want to know, this government intends to follow the law and to take the direction of the courts of this province.

We have simply put the school boards of this province on notice that we expect there might be some small delay in the normal transfer.

2:20 p.m.

Mr. Gordon: Now the minister is backing down.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Personally, I do not expect there will be any delay at this time. I fully expect --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I want to make it clear. Let me say to the opposition, and in particular to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman), most of this unhappy situation would not have occurred if the former government had taken its job seriously.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Continue; but briefly, I hope.

Hon. Mr. Conway: For over 13 months the predecessor government did nothing to get on with the business of extending the separate school system.

This government has simply indicated as recently as this week to the school community that those allocations which would have flowed Wednesday, Thursday or Friday of next week will be held until we have a clarification of the particulars of the court order which will arise from the judgement of Mr. Justice Potts last week. I fully expect that we will be able to clarify the situation very shortly and will be in a position to flow the funds to the involved school boards either on time or a day or two after the dates mentioned.

Mr. Grossman: For some time, it has been the suspicion on this side of the House that the Attorney General is giving instructions to the entire government, including the Premier (Mr. Peterson), and the Minister of Education is confirming it.

With regard to his responsibilities as Minister of Education, let me outline the chaos that he has created by getting caught up in the overly cautious legalese of his colleague the Attorney General. In Lanark county, the board was to have received more than $630,000. There are 3,000 students affected. That community does not know what to do in the next few weeks.

The Northumberland and Newcastle Board of Education heard yesterday that it will not be getting $1.2 million --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, these are important facts that we must draw to the attention of the government.

Mr. Speaker: I agree with the honourable member that question period is a very important time of the day to ask questions.

Mr. Grossman: The Northumberland and Newcastle Board of Education is meeting tonight to decide what to do. The Waterloo County Board of Education is currently arranging a bank loan at an interest cost of $18,500 for this month alone. In the Premier's home town, the London Board of Education expects to have to take out a bank loan and pay almost $1,000 a day. It was expecting $3 million from the government on December 5.

In those circumstances, can the minister explain the alleged competence of his government? It is now several weeks since the court decision came down. The Attorney General has given him some advice --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question has been asked.

Mr. Grossman: With respect, the question has not been asked.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question was asked. Do you want to ask it again?

Mr. Grossman: Yes, I do want to ask it again. The court order has not yet issued. Ministry lawyers are meeting today or tomorrow to begin work on the draft order. Can the minister explain what his ministry has done to cause all these boards -- 50 of them -- to be now in confusion, having emergency meetings and taking out bank loans, if it is, as the minister suggests, a delay of merely days?

Hon. Mr. Conway: The Ministry of Education has a standing practice of putting boards on a seven-day notice as to when the direct deposits will be made. The normal flow of events would have put the direct deposits on the account of the boards either next Wednesday, Thursday or Friday. We simply indicated, therefore, that there might be a very small delay. At this moment, I do not expect that there will be and there is no cause for alarm.

The regional offices of the Ministry of Education are indicating to all school boards across the province that the money will arrive either on the dates involved or perhaps one or two days later. There should be no cause for alarm and there is no need either for alarm or for borrowing on the part of the boards.

I find it passing strange to be lectured on the subject by the Leader of the Opposition, who in recent days has been seeking credit because he did not have the guts either to introduce the legislation or to get on with the business.

Mr. Allen: The minister knows very well that this had considerable potential for financial embarrassment for the public boards of this province.

Inasmuch as the Attorney General, when he rose to report to this House on the finding of Mr. Justice Potts, used the words, "He ordered that the government not distribute any funds pursuant to its regulation until a full panel of the Divisional Court," etc., did the Attorney General at that time advise the minister that he was in difficulty in advancing general funds to the public boards on schedule? How long has the minister known this? If he has known it since that time, why has he not alerted the boards to the difficulty in which they might find themselves?

Hon. Mr. Conway: There are two issues here. There are the reasons contained in the Potts judgement of a week ago Monday, but out of those reasons will come a written order. That written order has not yet obtained, but we expect it will very shortly.

We are seeking a clarification of this, and I repeat to the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen) that there is no cause for alarm. We expect to have that order clarified in a very short time and, on the basis of that, the funding will flow. I repeat, the school boards involved will get their money either on the dates in question -- December 3, 4 or 5 -- or, at the very outside, a day or so later.

Mr. Grossman: I understand the minister is trying to take the position that this is nothing the boards should worry about. But he must face the reality that 50 school boards contacted by this party this morning are out holding emergency meetings, are out borrowing money at the banks and are in chaos because proper direction obviously has not been given to them.

The minister's officials simply told the boards that the money was being withheld pending clarification. The minister did not tell them how long it would take; he did not offer any advice. One board, the Brant County Board of Education, asked for clarification in writing but was refused by the Ministry of Education.

Having put these boards in an impossible situation right now, what steps is the minister going to take this afternoon to clarify to the boards what his intentions are?

Hon. Mr. Conway: Let me repeat for the Leader of the Opposition that, first and foremost, this is a government that intends to abide by the law and to follow our court's direction. Let that be very clear.

If it is the view of the Leader of the Opposition that there is some uncertainty, we will once again contact the boards and indicate what I have said in this House. There is no cause for either alarm or panic. That funding will flow, I suspect, on time for either December 3, 4 or 5.

All we require at present is a clarification of the court order so that we are not in any violation of the judgement of Mr. Justice Potts. But the school boards need not worry. We will see to it that they get the funding and that they get it either on time or perhaps at the latest a day or two after that.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. Grossman: I have a new question for the minister following upon that bland assurance. We now have many boards out there that, because of his inability to communicate what he intended -- if, in fact, he has not just made it up on the spot here -- are out borrowing money today. Will the minister give an assurance to those boards that if they borrowed money because of the direction he failed to give, or if they are going to have to borrow money because he did not know how to handle this circumstance pending the court decision, the government will pick up all of the interest costs and not burden the local taxpayers?

Hon. Mr. Conway: Let the Leader of the Opposition understand one point: the money in question is not due to those boards until the middle of next week. December 3, 4 and 5 are the dates in question.

I repeat to the Leader of the Opposition and to my friends across the way that we expect a clarification of the court order very shortly. I have every reason to believe we can meet the deadline involved, and there is, according to my finance officials, no reason that any board should be involved in any borrowing on this account.

Mr. Grossman: Might I remind the minister that we are talking about the public school boards, not the separate school boards, which were the subject matter of the court hearing. The money is being withheld because of his Attorney General's fear that a decision relating to separate schools might, in his opinion, affect the minister's ability to flow funds to the public boards.

Why would the Minister of Education not stand up for the public boards and say to the Attorney General, "The order has not issued yet"? Why would he not have said to him that the judgement was not definitive in terms of --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Very simply because we all know that the Attorney General is a vastly better lawyer than the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Rae: Does the minister not realize it is his responsibility in dealing with the boards of education in this province to indicate clearly and categorically to them -- not in legalese, not by virtue of what is deemed to flow from Mr. Justice Potts's decision; but by virtue of his responsibility for public education -- and does he not appreciate that it is his special obligation to be able to stand in this House and say that no board and no student in the public school system shall suffer as a result of whatever legal actions the government has taken? Can the minister not stand in the House on this day, make that kind of statement and give that kind of assurance to the population of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Conway: Yes.

Mr. Grossman: Might I ask the minister this simple question and ask him to reply with something other than what he and his leader are trying to make famous, and that is a verbal finger to the opposition. Might I invite him to show some respect for the members of this House and the important matter we are discussing by addressing the issue.

The issue I want to ask him about is this. He knew --

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr. Grossman: The minister must have known, or the great Attorney General ought to have warned him, that this eventuality could occur. The minister has now had two weeks since the decision. In cabinet on Wednesday, why did he not take the step of passing a brand-new general legislative grant order for the public school boards and flow the money pursuant to that order?

Hon. Mr. Conway: It is interesting and rather amusing to hear the Leader of the Opposition suggest what we might have done. It is both breathtaking and mind-boggling, given what he did not do over his time in this responsibility. To the educational community across the land I say, if and to the extent there is any concern and difficulty in so far as this policy is concerned, it rests entirely on the backs of the opposition which for 13 months walked away from its responsibilities.

Mr. Grossman: The minister did not even come close to answering the question. He has no answer.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Grossman: No answer.

Mr. Pope: The minister should resign. They are incompetent over there.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would remind the members, again, 20 minutes for the first two questions. There are a lot of other members wishing to ask questions.

Mr. Grossman: There are no answers.

ANNUAL REPORT, PROVINCIAL AUDITOR

Mr. Rae: In the absence of the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), I have a question for the Solicitor General concerning the report of the Provincial Auditor that was released this morning. The report contains on page 35 a piece of information that I am sure will prove fascinating to the province.

The minister will remember that capital punishment was abolished, finally, in July 1976 and there have been no executions in Ontario, if my memory serves me correctly, since 1962. The last execution was held in the Don Jail in 1962. We are given the astonishing piece of information in this report that between 1976 and 1984, the ministry continued to pay $200 per month for the services of somebody called the provincial executioner -- I do not know whether this role was written by Gilbert and Sullivan or not, but it sounds like it -- with a total cost to the taxpayers amounting to $20,000.

Could the minister explain for us how it is possible that a provincial executioner was on the public payroll for eight years, until 24 years after the date of the last execution held in Ontario? Would the minister please explain how that could have happened?

2:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Keyes: I presume it only shows that some people never give up hope of reinstating capital punishment. In seriousness, I cannot name the person who has received that money because the name must remain in confidence, as with all past executioners. It was drawn to our attention today. I cannot speak for the Attorney General, but in the role of Solicitor General we have taken steps to ensure this will be thoroughly checked this week to see if it is not time to cancel the appointment of one said executioner.

Mr. Rae: If there is nothing to be done in this job and there has not been for some 23 years, since 1962, and if the Solicitor General is not allowed to tell us who occupied this august and, no doubt, extremely onerous and difficult position, I wonder if he could tell us whether it was a full-time or part-time job.

Hon. Mr. Keyes: Perhaps the word "piecework" would be most appropriate.

Mr. Philip: I have hung around this place for more than 10 years to get involved in an issue such as this.

I have a supplementary question about a further waste of taxpayers' money in the execution of justice policy. The auditor points out that this ministry has acquired a 61-year supply of breeches for the Ontario Provincial Police.

I wonder whether the Solicitor General would agree that this is an awful kick in the breeches of the taxpayers of Ontario. I recognize that, as a new minister, he is probably governing by the seat of his pants, but can he give away those breeches to some of the people who might be able to use them?

Hon. Mr. Keyes: Again, note has been made of the oversupply of a particular division in the matter of breeches. It is perhaps an overzealous attempt at motorcycle policing.

If I may have the privilege of answering the last question, I have now been informed that in the last very short while, the position of hangman has been discontinued, thanks to the report, probably since this afternoon.

The breeches are still there. Perhaps we could add that to the very worthwhile cause that has been initiated by the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) in his winter clothing allowance campaign. Maybe we could have breeches for the boys, courtesy of the OPP. I will certainly have to check with him.

Mr. Rae: I would like to ask the Minister of Health about this next one, as I am sure he will be aware of it, having seen the report. The auditor's report also found that residents of nursing homes were often charged for uninsured services without their written authorization. It is common practice to bill nursing home residents for services, such as administering their trust accounts, completing documents and making purchases.

What is the minister doing about the fact that one resident was even charged $150 for applying to leave the home? What is the minister doing to ensure that people are not being ripped off in establishments that are supported by public funds?

Hon. Mr. Elston: Part of the process deals with the Trustee Act. I can assure the member that act will be enforced. We are also taking steps to upgrade our inspection and audit capabilities in those facilities.

With respect to uninsured services, I will be in touch with the Ontario Nursing Home Association to implement steps so that sort of action cannot happen again. The member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke) raised questions similar to this very type of performance earlier in the year, and I responded to the very specific situations with innovations that proved effective. I thank the honourable member for the questions because it concerns me a great deal when those influences are exerted over residents in nursing homes.

Mr. Rae: The minister will know we have raised individual items. All of us in our party at one time or another have had experience of complaints about these kinds of charges. Since the auditor urges the ministry to examine whether such charges across the board in every home are reasonable, can the minister tell us why he has yet to introduce clear changes in the regulations that would prohibit the imposition of such charges on residents, who have very little protection and no alternative because they are in those places 24 hours a day? Can he not simply impose a ban on those charges through regulation?

Hon. Mr. Elston: There is an arrangement whereby those sorts of uninsured charges are supposed to be designated by the operators and then the individual people advised. I do not know the specific incident about which the honourable member is speaking, the charge of $150, but I do have considerable concern. We have been working, as I told the member earlier, with the entire regulations surrounding the Nursing Homes Act because we found there were deficiencies. I will consider arranging a review of that group of regulations which the member would like to see included.

Mr. Rae: On page 77, the auditor says, "We found that after the initial correspondence between the branch and the nursing homes there was frequently no evidence that the situation had been corrected." This is where the inspections branch was informed of some concern by a resident and would proceed to write to the individual nursing home. The audit found there was no change in policy and, in some cases involving individuals, no correction.

Does the minister not feel he has ample justification to change the rules and regulations in this report so that we do not continue to have small charges and some quite significant charges day after day? One hundred and fifty bucks for an application to leave strikes me as a grotesque kind of imposition on people.

Will he see that people are not nickel-and-dimed and inflicted with costs every day over and above what is allowed to be charged under the Nursing Homes Act? Does he not recognize this is a major problem?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I do recognize this to be a major problem. We are dealing with that with respect to the regulations that are being drafted and the ones that are being updated. I can assure the member I took seriously the individual situations that were brought to my attention by his colleague the member for Windsor-Riverside, and I will continue to take seriously allegations such as those set out in the auditor's report.

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Miss Stephenson: I have a question for the Minister of Education. The minister will recall that on September 16 he submitted to the boards of this province his amendments to the general legislative grants, within which he calculated for the boards the amount they would receive as an impact addendum if there were students transferring from their boards into coterminous Roman Catholic schools.

What disturbs me about the action that has been suggested -- supported by the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) -- to the Minister of Education, and that is apparently being pursued by the minister, is that it imperils the education of the other children within that school system. For example --

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Miss Stephenson: -- in Kenora the board is not receiving this week $240,000 for an $11,000 calculation, which could easily be subtracted on the basis of the amendment. The Halton Board of Education is not receiving $2.4 million because it is being held up by $8,000.

Is it not reasonable that the Minister of Education could have modified that very lucid and extremely sage advice by the Attorney General that all the students should be jeopardized, and subtracted the amount from the amount in the transfer?

Hon. Mr. Conway: May I join my friends in the official opposition in welcoming back my good friend the member for York Mills. Let me say quietly and dispassionately that there is no peril or threat that exists outside the minds of the opposition.

Mr. Gordon: It is all a big mirage for those school boards.

Mr. Mackenzie: Answer the question.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

2:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I will try to answer the question if the members opposite will allow me the opportunity. We have been in touch with the boards and we will continue to be in touch with them. We have said we require a clarification of the order that will flow from the Potts decision of 10 days ago. I expect to have that clarification shortly.

School boards all across Ontario should know they will receive the ordinary transfer either on time or, at the worst, a day or two later. At this time, I am quite confident the funding will flow on the appointed dates of December 3, 4 and 5. What the opposition has to recall is that we in the ministry have a process whereby a seven-day notice period exists to put the boards on standby that the deposit will take place.

Because of the opinion and the advice tendered by the Ministry of the Attorney General, we have indicated we require a clarification of the order that will flow from the court decision about 10 days ago. We expect to get that clarification shortly. We expect there to be no difficulty. Let me repeat that the funds will flow in the ordinary course of events, I hope and pray, on time, and at the worst, a day or so later. To the extent there is any delay, it will be to accommodate the court.

Miss Stephenson: There is a good deal of consternation on the part of the boards of this province that is compounded by the fact that the message was delivered at the 11th hour. No particular advance notice was given to them so that they could have some indication of the minister's intentions. They have no idea how long it is going to take, because there has been no transmission of information about an expected period of time. In most boards' circumstances, it is not outside the power of the minister to subtract the very small amount that is in question from the transfer amount. It is a piddling amount in most circumstances.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Miss Stephenson: He can subtract that from the amount to be transferred and transfer the rest of it as he ordinarily would. That is sensible, surely.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I do not want the member for York Mills to become unduly agitated. The boards of education are not agitated. The only agitation I have sensed over the past number of months among boards of education is, "Why did the Tories do this to us in this fashion?"

ANNUAL REPORT, PROVINCIAL AUDITOR

Mr. Wildman: I have a question for the Solicitor General about the Provincial Auditor's report in relation to the weak controls on the storage of weapons by the Ontario Provincial Police. It refers to OPP weapons and confiscated handguns, sawed-off shotguns, machine guns and a large quantity of ammunition that apparently is controlled by a custodian who is in charge of the inventory records. I am sure the minister is aware of this.

Can he explain what he is doing to ensure that windows are not broken, that windows do not stay open continually, that doors are not left open, that doors are properly guarded and that an alarm system is installed so that these very dangerous weapons and amounts of ammunition cannot slip into the wrong hands?

Hon. Mr. Keyes: One of the interesting things about an auditor's report, which as a new government it is always great to know, is that there are lots of opportunities to correct previous errors or omissions that have been committed. I have visited the area in question. Following the report, which deputies were privileged to be given some time earlier, responses were made in September and corrections were made, particularly to the security of that important area. When I visited in September, they had installed a number of security measures that guarantee the security of the weapons and ammunition kept there.

Mr. Wildman: Can the minister explain what security measures have been taken, specifically regarding alarms and guarding of the area? Is he aware that weapons were apparently outside the proper weapons area without the knowledge of the custodian and without having been signed out? Perhaps this government, instead of paying a hangman and spending money on 61 years' worth of breeches, will actually use the money to assure us that this area is properly secured and is guarded to ensure that the weapons are not taken out without the knowledge of the person who is supposed to be in control.

Hon. Mr. Keyes: I will table for the honourable gentleman in the very near future the actual installation mechanisms that were put in place after this was brought to our attention. I will also show the procedures now being followed to ensure that weapons are not being taken out without proper authorization.

NIAGARA RIVER WATER QUALITY

Mr. Haggerty: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. It has been reported that a cleanup plan has been announced for the Hyde Park chemical dump near the Niagara River on the American side, a cleanup that does not include excavation of the site. Would the minister indicate to the House whether he is satisfied with this agreement and, if not, what action he intends to take?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: There are two dumps about which there has been some discussion recently. The first was the S area. I think the one the member is referring to is the Hyde Park agreement, which was recently announced, involving the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the Environmental Conservation Service, New York state, and the company, Occidental Chemical Corp.

It is my view that the agreement that was reached is not satisfactory as far as we in Ontario are concerned -- at least, speaking for this government. As members of the House would be aware from discussions of this matter over some time, the real debate has revolved around whether containment is sufficient or whether excavation should be looked at as one of the potential answers to this question.

Because of the kinds of chemicals that are in existence in this dump -- and I have seen them leaching down through the gorge and making their way into the Niagara River -- it is my view that excavation should not be ruled out as one of the middle- or long-term solutions to this and that immediate containment is only a small step forward but a necessary step.

Second, I have a concern about the fact that the information upon which this agreement was based would be two or three years out of date. Some of the substances moving out of the Hyde Park dump are moving at a significant rate and might well be farther outside the boundary of the dump than was the case when the agreement was first reached.

In answer to the member's question, I am not satisfied with that particular agreement.

Mr. Haggerty: What action will the minister then take to inform the American officials we are not satisfied with it?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I suppose two things can be done. First, I will contact the federal Minister of the Environment so that we can co-ordinate a response to our American neighbours, indicating our dissatisfaction with it.

Second, I will personally direct correspondence in a very public way to the ECS and the EPA, expressing the viewpoint of the Ontario government that we do not consider this agreement to be satisfactory to meet the needs of the people of this province.

Mrs. Grier: I am relieved to hear that the minister does not consider the agreement that has been arrived at as satisfactory. Can I take it from his response that when it comes to the solution of the hazardous waste problems identified on Ontario's side of the border, he will regard excavation as the solution as well?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I think it is important, as we have demonstrated on the Canadian side of the border in the Niagara River situation, that we be prepared to meet all our commitments for two reasons. First, it is important for the environmental safety of the people we represent and of those in adjoining jurisdictions. Second, it is important that we meet those obligations because it provides us with a trump card or a very strong hand to play in our negotiations with our American neighbours.

I would not exclude any potential fix, if I may put it in those terms, of any of the environmental problems we have on this side of the border. Our American friends and the citizens in our own province can rest assured of that.

3 p.m.

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Mr. Pope: I have a question for the Minister of Education on Mr. Justice Potts's decision that was issued verbally on November 14. This decision was issued two weeks ago; that has been two weeks in which the minister has had time to resolve this matter administratively.

Since it was the minister's officials who contacted boards of education across the province and told them that because of Mr. Justice Potts's decision there would be no money for them in December -- not that there would be a delay, but that there would be no money -- why did the government lawyers not settle the terms of the order immediately with all the other lawyers in the presence of Mr. Justice Potts?

If there was some uncertainty that led ministry officials to call the boards across the province, why did they not settle the terms of that order on November 14 or immediately thereafter?

Hon. Mr. Conway: The member for Cochrane South has his dates wrong. I have the reasons from Mr. Justice Potts in my hand, and they bear the date of November 18; that is not two weeks but 10 days ago.

I will repeat for the benefit of the member for Cochrane South what has transpired. The Ministry of the Attorney General has been examining the reasons contained in the Potts judgement. The staff has indicated to me it feels a clarification is required. At this moment, and for the past while, they have been involved in determining how that order can be clarified.

I am confident the school boards of this province can expect the ordinary flow of funds on time next week. I do not know what the school boards were told by the opposition; however, I do know the regional offices were in contact and indicated the seven-day notice period, which is what we are talking about here.

Mr. Harris: That is not what they were told.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I would be very interested. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition has some affidavits he would like to share with me.

I want to say again to the school boards that once the order is clarified -- and I expect that very shortly -- funds will flow. I am very hopeful they will flow on the dates of December 3, 4 and 5, and if not on those dates, perhaps a day or so later.

I am informed by my departmental officials, with whom I will recheck these data, that there should be no borrowing costs devolving on to the local boards.

Mr. Pope: I find that answer shocking. We are talking about the minister's officials who phoned across this province, not on November 14 when the matter was publicly commented upon by Mr. Justice Potts, not on November 15 when the item appeared in the Toronto newspapers, not on November 18 when the judgement was issued, but yesterday at four o'clock.

The boards were told there would be no money. It was not the members of the opposition who made the calls, but the minister's officials. His officials created the uncertainty.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Pope: I want to know why those calls were made yesterday at four o'clock in the afternoon when the minister had had more than 10 days to deal with this matter.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Let me say very clearly to my friend from Timmins, the boards were notified yesterday out of courtesy. We in the government, unlike the official opposition, did not want the boards to panic. We do not believe there is any panic in the boards. The boards would have expected a seven-day notice of the direct deposit. The regional offices simply contacted the boards to indicate that there could be a delay. We do not expect any substantial delay in the clarification of the court order.

Let me repeat that I am very hopeful the funds involved will flow in the ordinary course of events to the bank accounts of the boards in question. We have taken steps with the financial institutions and with Treasury to reduce the turnaround period substantially. It used to take the Tories four days, and it will take us one day in this instance. We have made that accommodation. Let me say --

Mr. Speaker: Quickly, I hope.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I know my friends in the opposition will want to be careful and prudent and not cast about these kinds of absolutely uncalled-for and alarmist suggestions.

Mr. Rae: If it is the government's serious view that out of Mr. Justice Potts's decision dated November 18 there arises a problem with respect to the transfer of funds to public schools, and if that is the minister's judgement, can he explain why in the name of heaven he was not back in the courts on November 19 asking for clarification?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I say to my learned colleague the leader of the New Democratic Party --

Ms. Gigantes: The best lawyer in the House.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I defer to the Justice critic for the New Democratic Party as to who is the best lawyer in the House. Not being one, obviously I will have to take the advice of the --

Mr. Grossman: You are not the best Minister of Education either.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I say to the Leader of the Opposition that as Minister of Education, I had the intestinal fortitude to get on with a major and difficult task. That is more than I can say for --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I could not hear anything from any side.

HOMEMAKER PROGRAM

Ms. Gigantes: My question is for the Minister of Health. The minister will know that in mid-election, in April, the Conservatives offered a minimum, short, hesitant step towards establishing an integrated homemaker service in this province. They promised six pilot projects. Since then, we have heard nothing. There has been no announcement of projects or money. Will the minister tell us what will be happening, where it will be happening and with what resources it will be happening?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I thank the honourable member for the question. The ministry is currently making arrangements and taking steps with its sister ministry, the Ministry of Community and Social Services, to set up frail-elderly homemaking programs. I cannot say exactly when the announcements will be made, but we are working on ways of implementing those programs.

Ms. Gigantes: I remind the minister that the integrated homemaker program is not just designed for the frail elderly. We would not expect it would be. There are people who suffer from Alzheimer's disease and multiple sclerosis, there are handicapped people and there are younger people who desperately need that service.

Can he tell us at this point when he will be approving the 1985 budget for such programs as the Ottawa-Carleton home care program, which is still operating on the 1984 budget plus a minimum interim boost to its financing?

Hon. Mr. Elston: Those budgets are being reviewed, and there should be announcements shortly with respect to those programs for the 1985 year.

3:10 p.m.

ENERGY FROM WASTE PLANT

Ms. E. J. Smith: This question is for the Minister of the Environment. A long and expensive consolidated hearing board was held in London to examine the advisability of building the energy from waste plant on the campus of the new Victoria Hospital, which is in a residential neighbourhood. The hearing was held through the efforts and partly at the expense of those people who live nearby or downwind from this site and by those more generally concerned with the environment.

As a result of that hearing, new and more stringent standards were laid down for the proposed plant. I am led to believe some efforts have been made to have these standards lowered. Will the minister assure me and the citizens of London South that the standards prescribed by the consolidated hearing board will be strictly adhered to?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: For a project of this kind to be successful and in order that other projects similar to it can enjoy the degree of success their proponents wish them to enjoy, it is absolutely essential that all the stipulations laid down by the consolidated hearing board are adhered to. I assure the honourable member there is no intention on the part of the Ministry of the Environment to lower those standards in any way.

Ms. E. J. Smith: I thank the minister; I am somewhat relieved by that.

Since the cost of this energy from waste plant will be roughly $35 million, I want to be doubly assured that the contract for this incineration of garbage will contain all the necessary posting of efficacy bonds. As has happened in other communities, it is a disaster if such an expensive unit is built and the bonding is not in place.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I can assure the member we want to ensure the success of this project as well by ensuring that all the necessary provisions she has described in the House will be adhered to.

Mr. Gillies: I would like to ask the minister if he has been asked this question before by the member for London South.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: As the honourable member knows, having been a member of this House for as long as he has and having sat in the House on a daily basis, this question has not been directed to me in this House--

Mr. Grossman: Not in this House. Has she ever asked the minister before?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: -- nor has this question been directed to me in any other forum with which any of us is familiar.

Mr. Grossman: No doubt the constituents of London South will be wondering whether the Minister of the Environment is accessible to Liberal back-benchers, who apparently have to come here to ask a question.

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Mr. Grossman: I have another question for the Minister of Education. He clings to the belief that there is no problem out there in terms of misunderstanding by the boards of education. I want to bring to his attention the following information.

The director of finance for the Lanark County Board of Education, when contacted by our caucus, said "they have no idea what the reason for this decision is and no indication ahead of time that this was going to happen." He went on to say that it was "ludicrous and unrealistic" and that the problem of new separate school funding should not have any bearing on funding the current students in the system.

The superintendent of financial services for the Waterloo County Board of Education said he would like a better explanation from the ministry of why this had happened and why they were not notified until the eleventh hour. To quote him, "You cannot run an organization this way." He went on to say --

Mr. Speaker: Minister.

Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I have not used as much time as the member for London South (Ms. E. J. Smith) used in posing her question.

Mr. Speaker: Minister.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I believe I have the --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Minister.

Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I wish to stand on a point of personal privilege and on a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: What is the point of order?

Mr. Grossman: No question has been put to this minister at this time for him to answer. Either you protect the rights of the opposition to pose questions at as much length as some of the nonanswers we have been getting or you shirk your responsibilities to protect our rights to question the government of the day. I insist on our rights.

Mr. Speaker: I listened very attentively to the member's point of view. I cannot see where it is a point of order. Having looked at the clock and having kept time with all the questions and replies, I feel I have been most fair to members on all sides of the House. When a person places a question with much information --

Mr. Grossman: I have not placed a question.

Mr. Speaker: There are many times when I feel a member is asking, "Do you agree?" so I have considered that the question to the minister.

Mr. Grossman: I did not ask that question. The question has not been put.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the honourable member take his seat.

Mr. Grossman: If you want the question posed, invite me to pose it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There was ample time and information for a question to be posed.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I know the opposition would want the director of finance for the great county of Lanark to have the answer, and the answer is simply this: The Ministry of Education has a practice whereby there is a seven-day notice period, before which the direct deposit takes place. Out of courtesy we notified the boards that there could be a delay. We hoped there would not be one.

We will be contacting the boards very shortly to tell them, among other things, that this afternoon all parties to the injunction hearing have agreed on the kind of court order that would satisfy them with regard to their interpretation of the Potts reasons. Therefore, I am very confident the Lanark County Board of Education and all others will receive the money on time next week.

Mr. Davis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker -- I assume this is a point of order; if it is not, I will defer to your judgement: The directors of education whom I have contacted today have informed me that they were told the funds would not flow through -- not that they might not flow through but that they would not flow through -- as required on December 3. The minister needs to deal with that question.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. It is a point of information from the member.

USE OF TIME IN QUESTION PERIOD

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House who wanted to get a question in today, I would ask you please to protect us from the novices in this House, whether they are the new Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) or the government whip, with regard to abusing the amount of time they use in their questions.

Mr. Harris: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: We think you should protect all the members' rights in question period. I agree with the point of privilege that was made. You have an obligation, if you feel a question is going on too long or if too much information is being given, to call that questioner to put the question. If you are not going to call for the question to be put, we do not think you have the right to call on the minister to make a statement when no question is being put. I ask you to consider that.

3:20 p.m.

Mr. McClellan: On the point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I want to refer to standing order 20(a), "If a member on being called to order for an offence against the standing order persists in the offence, the Speaker may direct him to discontinue his speech," etc., and to other references in standing order 19.

I have to point out to my colleagues in the official opposition that the Leader of the Opposition has defied the Speaker virtually every time he got to his feet in question period. He did not resume his seat when Mr. Speaker called order and he took a long time out of the question period. The question period does not belong to the Leader of the Opposition. He does not have ownership of it. It belongs to the members of this assembly.

We ask you, sir, to continue to try to protect the rights of the members of this assembly against the unwarranted usurpation by the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Those were very interesting points of view. I will read them very carefully and do my best to make sure every member has the right to speak and to be heard.

MOTION

COMMITTEE SITTING

Hon. Mr. Conway moved that the select committee on economic affairs be authorized to meet following routine proceedings on Thursday, December 5, 1985.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PETERBOROUGH RACING ASSOCIATION LIMITED ACT

Mr. Turner moved, seconded by Mr. Gillies, first reading of Bill Pr39, An Act respecting Peterborough Racing Association Limited.

Motion agreed to.

CITY OF KITCHENER ACT

Mr. D. R. Cooke moved, seconded by Mr. Callahan, first reading of Bill Pr44, An Act respecting the city of Kitchener.

Motion agreed to.

HEALTH DISCIPLINES AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. D. S. Cooke moved, seconded by Ms. Gigantes, first reading of Bill 67, An Act to Establish Midwifery as a Self-Governing Health Profession.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have introduced this bill before. This is a repeat. The reason it is being reintroduced is that midwifery is still not recognized as an integral part of the health care system in Ontario and it is our hope that it will be. I look forward to this bill being debated in the future in the Legislature.

ANSWER TO QUESTION IN ORDERS AND NOTICES

Hon. Mr. Conway: I wish to table the answer to question 96 in Orders and Notices [see Hansard for Friday, November 29].

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

TAX DISCOUNTERS

Mr. Morin moved, seconded by Mr. Offer, resolution 22:

That in the opinion of this House, recognizing that tax refund discounting exploits the poor, the government of Ontario should, through consultation with the government of Canada, move to eliminate the current usurious practices of tax discounters whereby they are able to exact exorbitant charges in exchange for advancing immediate cash to persons entitled to tax refunds.

Mr. Morin: I am pleased to have this opportunity to present to the Legislative Assembly a matter that I believe to be of the utmost importance and one that has troubled me greatly since I learned of its existence. The matter is the practice of tax rebate discounting whereby a person expecting a tax refund can go to a discounter and sell his rights to his tax refund for immediate cash.

In exchange for this service, the discounter keeps 15 per cent of the expected cash refund which, calculated as yearly interest, amounts to more than 90 per cent. This is permitted by the present federal legislation.

The practice of discounting troubles me for two major reasons. The first is that the people who tend to use the service are poor. Two thirds have taxable incomes of less than $8,000 and one third of less than $2,000. They are people who can least afford to lose such a large part of their refund cheques to discounters.

La pratique du recours à des escompteurs d'impôts me bouleverse pour deux raisons majeures. La première est que les gens qui ont tendance à recourir à ces services sont pauvres. Les deux tiers ont un revenu imposable inférieur à $8,000, et le tiers un revenu imposable inférieur à $2,000. Ce sont les gens qui peuvent le moins se permettre de perdre une si grande partie de leurs chèques de remboursement aux mains des escompteurs.

3:30 p.m.

The second reason tax discounting troubles me is that millions of dollars of our taxpayers' money, intended for social programs, is actually going into the pockets of discounters. Last year $41 million was charged by discounters across Canada; $18 million in Ontario alone. Especially disturbing is that nearly 85 per cent of the discounters in Canada are branches of American companies, companies that are not allowed to discount government cheques in the United States, where the practice of discounting has been prohibited since 1976.

La deuxième raison pour laquelle cette pratique me bouleverse est que des millions des argents de nos contribuables, prévus pour des programmes sociaux, vont en réalité dans les poches des escompteurs. L'an dernier, cette somme était de $41 millions à travers le Canada, dont $18 millions ici-même en Ontario. Ce qui est davantage troublant c'est le fait que près de 85 pour cent des escompteurs au Canada sont des succursales de compagnies américaines qui n'ont pas le droit d'escompter les chèques du gouvernement aux États-Unis, où la pratique du recours à des escompteurs est prohibée depuis 1976.

The issue of tax discounting is of particular importance to the members of this House. Ontario citizens constitute the largest proportion of users of discounters in this country. Last year approximately 170,000 low-income Ontarians discounted their cheques at a cost of $18 million. This represents 44 per cent of the national total. The next largest number of users of discounters is to be found in British Columbia, where 46,000 citizens, or 12 per cent of the national total, discounted their cheques.

I would like to provide the members of this House with a brief history of the practice of discounting in Canada and of the unsuccessful attempts that have been made to regulate it both by provincial governments and by the federal government.

The practice started in western Canada about 1974 and gradually made its way eastward. By 1977, discounting offices had been set up in nearly every province and were charging up to half of the tax refund in exchange for immediate cash. Interest rates of 1,200 per cent were not uncommon.

The industry was completely unregulated. While federal legislators studied the problem, many provinces acted on their own and passed legislation limiting the money that could be kept by discounters to five per cent of the estimated refund cheque. Persons using discounting services had to be given cash equivalent to 95 per cent of their estimated refunds.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman), then Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, when he introduced the Income Tax Discounters Act in 1977, said it was "time to protect those who, because of urgent financial need, become prey to this form of exploitation. Therefore, because this government sees the necessity for an immediate and effective solution to this recurring problem, I will introduce later today the Income Tax Discounters Act, 1977. This act will limit the amount of the discount to five per cent. In other words, the discounter must pay to the taxpayer at least 95 per cent of the anticipated refund."

This bill was passed with the unanimous consent of all three parties and within two weeks it became law. The following year the federal government passed its own act, the Tax Rebate Discounting Act, allowing discounters to keep not five per cent but 15 per cent of the taxpayer's refund. The discounters had convinced the government that the rates set in the provincial legislation would put them out of business.

After seven years of existence, it is clear that the federal Tax Rebate Discounting Act is ineffective in dealing with the problem of tax rebate discounting. Since its proclamation in 1978, the discounting industry has flourished. From only a handful of shops in 1979, there now exist more than 1,000. From an industry-wide revenue of $570,000 in 1979, last year discounters pocketed $41 million that was intended to go to low-income Canadians. The number of people using discounting services has also multiplied drastically from 7,000 initially to 385,000 in 1984. Every year since the Tax Rebate Discounting Act came into existence, the number of people using discounters and the amount of money kept by discounters have more than doubled.

Some would say these facts and figures prove tax discounting is a popular and much-needed service. Some would say it provides poor people with a valuable source of credit and with tax preparation services to boot. Some would say that to abolish the practice would hurt those most in need of urgent financial assistance. With respect, I would most strongly disagree with those submissions.

Tax rebate discounting does not help the poor. It compounds their financial difficulties because they end up with even less income than they would otherwise have. Discounters tell stories of families who would face eviction or whose children would go cold or hungry if their tax returns could not be cashed quickly. I hesitate to believe these stories because I know that our social service system exists to assist individuals in just such times of financial crisis.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: It is true.

Mr. Morin: If these stories are true, and if our social service system is not equal to the task of assisting individuals in times of financial crisis, surely tax discounting is not the answer. Convenience, ignorance and lack of alternative sources of easy credit are the main reasons for the popularity of discounting services.

There is convenience because discounters set up shop on busy street corners and in shopping malls. They distribute flyers throughout low-income neighbourhoods to advertise their services. Discounting offices are convenient, accessible and readily identifiable. Less well known are the literally hundreds of Department of National Revenue offices, community centres and self-help groups that provide free assistance to immigrants and low-income people who have difficulty completing their tax returns.

I cite ignorance as a factor in the popularity of discounting services because I believe it is fair to say that most users are unaware of the exorbitant rates of interest they are being charged. While discounters are obligated by law to disclose the interest rate on customer contracts, the formula used to calculate the interest rate is seriously outdated and in any event the figure is probably overlooked by the vast majority of users of discounting services.

With respect to alternative sources of credit, I admit that most of the people who resort to tax discounters probably cannot obtain credit elsewhere. I am confident, however, that the elimination of tax rebate discounting would open new lending possibilities for poor people. A need would be created for established financial institutions to provide loans to people at market rates of interest, using the tax rebates as collateral. Until now, this need has been met by discounters.

To ensure repayment of the loans, financial institutions could be permitted to have the refunds sent directly to them. This type of loan program has been successfully established by a credit union in Ottawa. At least one small loan company in Toronto has expressed an interest to my office in setting up such a loan program. There is clearly a demand for this type of service, and this demand could be met without charging the exorbitant rates of interest of the discounters.

3:40 p.m.

There are those who might say that abolishing tax discounting is infringing on an individual's freedom of contract. There are many instances in which a government in passing legislation infringes on individual rights. We do so because certain practices are seen to be socially unacceptable. Loan sharking or usury is but one example. The Criminal Code prohibits people from charging more than 60 per cent interest on a loan, no matter how willingly the contract may have been entered into. Unfortunately, tax discounters have been specifically excluded from this provision.

In the matter of tax discounting, we are dealing with not only an individual's money but the money of our taxpayers -- $41 million in 1984. This money was intended to be for social programs to assist low-income people. I believe it is our obligation as legislators to ensure that this money gets to those people for whom it is intended.

There are two more concerns I would like to address before concluding my statement. Some people have expressed the concern that a ban on tax discounting would merely drive it underground where it would be completely unregulated. With respect, I do not believe users of discounting services are desperate enough to turn to the risky and illegal blackmailing market. Barring the establishment of lending programs, which I described earlier, I believe that most taxpayers would simply submit their tax returns to the Department of National Revenue and wait for their cheques. This proved to be the case in the United States.

The second concern is on the impact of unemployment that a ban on tax discounting might have. The discounting industry is seasonal; it lasts only from January to April. Each discounting office hires three or fewer people. I have calculated that the elimination of tax discounting in Ontario would result in the loss of 558 full-time, year-round jobs. This loss would be unfortunate. However, I believe it would be more than compensated for by the $18 million kept by Ontario discounters last year, which would be infused instead into our low-income community.

Most people here today are no doubt aware that last week the federal government announced proposals to deal with the problem of tax rebate discounting. It has decided not to ban the practice, but rather it has undertaken expensive and complicated half-measures designed to discourage people from using discounters. It is estimated these measures will cost $5 million to $10 million. I find these proposals to be unacceptable and bordering on the outrageous.

First, from now on, the child tax credit will be paid in instalments throughout the year instead of at tax time. The majority of those people who use discounting services do not even receive the child tax credit. Of the users of tax discounting, 56 per cent are single people, be they the elderly, students or the seasonally employed.

Second, the Conservative initiatives apparently reduce the discount rates discounters are legally allowed to charge. However, when calculated on a yearly basis, these discount rates still amount to more than 60 per cent in interest. The Conservatives are saying no person may charge usurious rates of interest unless he or she is a tax discounter. There is no justifiable excuse for this preferential treatment.

Third, by decreasing the allowable discount that can be kept by the discounters, the Conservatives are encouraging more people to use those services. There is a real danger that even more of our taxpayers' money than last year will go into the pockets of discounters.

I firmly believe the only effective way to deal with the problem of tax rebate discounting is to abolish the practice altogether. This is not an exotic or naïve suggestion. It was done in the United States, that bastion of free enterprise, almost a decade ago. It would have to be complemented by improved access to sources of credit for poor people, but I believe that would come about naturally. If that proved not to be the case, then governments might have to band together to establish such loan programs.

I also believe Revenue Canada should continue its efforts to speed up the processing of returns, especially during tax-filing time. It should publicize its own free services and those offered by community centres as aggressively as the tax discounters do.

La proscription de la cession du droit aux remboursements d'impôts augmenterait sensiblement les sommes d'argent atteignant les pauvres, sans accroître la dette nationale. Cela nous garantirait que les argents de nos contribuables iraient toujours à ceux pour qui ils sont destinés. Cela rendrait la politique de notre pays à parité avec celle des États-Unis sur cette question importante. En dernier lieu, cela remplirait notre mandat comme législateurs de protéger les gens les moins capables de se protéger eux-mêmes.

Prohibiting tax discounting would substantially increase the amount of money going to poor people without increasing the deficit. It would ensure that our taxpayers' money went to those people for whom it was intended. It would bring this country up to date with the United States on this important issue. Finally, it would fulfil our mandate as legislators to protect those people least able to protect themselves.

Therefore, I call on all my fellow MPPs to encourage the federal government to repudiate this exploitation of the poor by supporting the resolution that is now before this House.

Mr. Gillies: I rise to speak this afternoon in support of the honourable member's motion. I and many members of the House have been very disturbed for a number of years about the practice of tax discounting. I have considered it for some years to be one of the grossest exploitations of the poor people in our province.

I want to return to that premise. A couple of things should be said about the honourable member's presentation, about some of the points he makes and perhaps about the approaches that should be taken to this issue.

First, I think most members of the House would agree that it would be preferable to have federal legislation covering this area from one coast of our country to the other. In its absence, it is important that the government of Ontario move to outlaw this practice in Ontario. None the less, it bothers me that some of our cousins and friends in the Maritimes and elsewhere will continue to be subjected to this practice in the absence of federal legislation.

I do not want to overly politicize this debate, but I did hear my friend opposite repeatedly say the Conservative government in Ottawa had not done this or had not done that. I would like to go over the history of this issue and preface that history with my delight that some 10 years after this was first raised in the Legislature, we finally have a Liberal speaking about the issue.

In the late 1970s, when this first became of concern to members of the Legislature, it was raised, if I am not mistaken, by Michael Davison, the former New Democratic member for Hamilton Centre, in 1976. I did a bit of digging in Hansard, Mr. Speaker, as I know you are prone to do -- being a great Hansard fan, like myself, my friend the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) and others in the House.

I found a number of references to this practice and to concerns raised by the former member for Hamilton Centre. I found that first act regulating this question in Ontario was introduced on November 8, 1977, by the former Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and now the Leader of the Opposition. I will return to that because I want to quote what my leader had to say on that day.

3:50 p.m.

However, to my consternation, I looked and looked through Hansard and I could not find any expressions of concern by members of the Liberal Party in those days. My friend the member for Carleton East (Mr. Morin) will say: "I am not talking about Liberals and Tories here. I am talking about Liberals and Tories in Ottawa." That is fine. Just for a moment I would like to talk about Liberals and Tories in Ottawa. I am referring now to a brief by an organization that has fought long and hard to see this practice regulated, the National Anti-Poverty Organization.

I checked with a friend of mine in Brantford who is a member of NAPO and he sent me this brief. It has a bit of a history in Ottawa. This issue was first brought to the attention of the federal government in 1982. NAPO raised its concern about the number of poor families who were losing a portion of their child tax credit as a result of discounting and, beyond that, raised the issue of discounting itself as a lending and borrowing practice.

In January 1983, NAPO expressed its concern to Madame Bégin, the then Minister of National Health and Welfare.

Mr. Runciman: What party did she belong to?

Mr. Gillies: My friend the member for Leeds asked me what party she belonged to. I do believe she was a Liberal.

NAPO expressed its concern about the number of child tax credit claimants discounting their rebates and its belief that something should be done about this. They did not hear anything all through 1983. In December 1983, NAPO's executive discussed the issue with the Honourable Judy Erola, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs of the day. The member for Leeds will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe she was also a Liberal.

In the weeks and months following that approach to the Honourable Judy Erola, NAPO wrote a detailed letter in March 1984 to officials in the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, outlining its specific reasons for opposing discounting and including recommendations on what should be done.

I know my friend the member for Carleton East will be as shocked as I was to learn that from March until October 1984, NAPO heard absolutely nothing from the government of Canada about this outrageous practice. In its twilight years, the former Liberal government with which we were blessed in this country sat on its hands and did absolutely nothing.

Apparently, again according to my friend in NAPO, some attention -- whether or not it is adequate in the eyes of my friend the member for Carleton East -- started to be paid to this issue only after the election of a new government in Ottawa in September 1984. The new Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Mr. Côté, started the study which has led to some of the recommendations that are being made.

Despite all that, and I say this in the true spirit of nonpartisan co-operation to my friend, I am supporting his motion. I think what he is saying is right and that this practice should be outlawed. However, when he kept saying Conservative ministers did not do anything, I had to bring to the attention of the House the fact that the former federal Liberal government thumbed its nose at this practice.

I want to return to the legislation introduced into this House by the now Leader of the Opposition, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick, on November 8, 1977. I want to quote from that speech, because the member described very well the issue that faces us. He was talking about the storefront offices most of us have seen spring up in our ridings at various times.

Poor people, people who need quick cash, people who get a commitment from the government for a rebate of a certain amount, are anxious to have that or a portion of it because of the conditions under which they have to try to feed and clothe their families. They turn to these operators to get quick cash. My leader pointed out some eight years ago in this House:

"These operators charge heavily -- often up to 50 per cent of the face value of the refund. For example, if a taxpayer receives 60 cents on the dollar from the discounter this would be in effect an interest rate of 800 per cent per annum, assuming the refund from National Revenue is issued in a month." That is 800 per cent interest if the claimant was waiting one month for the discount from Ottawa.

My leader went on to say that the government was cognizant that some of the western provinces were moving on it, because they had been subjected to these discounting practices and we had not. The necessity for legislation was obvious as the discounters were moving into Ontario from other parts of Canada.

I quote the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick again: "Therefore, because this government sees the necessity for an immediate and effective solution to this recurring problem, I will introduce later today the Income Tax Discounters Act, 1977. This act will limit the amount of the discount to five per cent. In other words, the discounter must pay to the taxpayer at least 95 per cent of the anticipated refund. If the refund is greater than the amount calculated on the return, the excess must go to the taxpayer."

That was a very positive step in the right direction, but we have seen variations on the practice continue. As my friend the member for Carleton East has pointed out, the practice continues and people continue to be ripped off by the discounters. I believe the steps introduced by the government of Canada are a step in the right direction, but they do not go far enough.

In a country such as ours, which has been built on the premise that people can get ahead, but that we reach out to those who need help more than we do ourselves, it is shameful that we have lagged behind the United States in regard to this legislation. It has been outlawed in the United States and the time has long gone by when it should have been outlawed in Canada.

I hope members from all three parties will see the opportunity to bring to the attention of this government a wrong that should be redressed. I think it is important that we pass the resolution of the member for Carleton East, but I also caution my friends opposite that it is then important that they go ahead and do something about it.

The fate of private members' bills and resolutions bothers a number of us in all three parties. This afternoon, Thursday after Thursday, can be a bit of a farce or it can be the genesis of any number of good ideas that can be brought into legislation.

Mr. Breaugh: I want to support the resolution the member for Carleton East has put forward this afternoon. It brings to our attention something that has been brought to our attention many times before. If we have to say it again, let us say it again.

Stealing from the poor has always been a popular sport. Throughout the centuries, people have made it their occupation because it is so easy and the poor are so vulnerable. Perhaps one cannot rip off quite as much money from them as one could from General Motors or from the Speaker of the Legislature, who has large amounts of cash on hand, but it is easy because the poor need a little quick cash and are willing to make themselves the victims.

This process of stealing from the poor has become a dignified business. I find it offensive that it is no longer called "stealing from the poor." It is now called something different, "tax discounting," which sounds like an okay operation.

It is not stealing on the street with a pistol or a knife and it is not banging them on the head. It is going into a nice clean office with a snappy little sign with the name of a dignified business operation attached to it. In the process, it has become sanitized, cleansed and legitimate.

The sadness is that it all stems from the government of Canada trying to help some people. Through various tax measures over the years, it has provided rebate systems, the means by which the poor can recover some of their money from the taxation process. It is to our everlasting shame that a problem has lasted this long, has escaped the attention of government and has almost defied government attempts to do anything about it.

4 p.m.

There is a reason for that. Governments themselves like to steal from the poor. They think it is a good sport too, and they cannot quite chase after these stealers from the poor, because they are doing the same thing. This government steals from the poor every time a poor child buys a candy bar. Every time a poor person lives life to the fullest and buys a litre of gasoline, this government taxes him.

Feeling guilty a year or so afterwards -- and it takes that long for governments to feel guilty -- it will try to provide some kind of rebate system. Poor people do not have the opportunity to take that rebate to their personal accountant, lawyer or financial institution to get the money. They need the money now; so instead of waiting for governments to react, they have to go to places such as tax discounters.

I find a great measure of sadness in the inability of governments to respond, in the inability and the unwillingness sometimes of governments to do anything about it. We have had a little bit of debate here this afternoon about who responded first to this great need. The answer is, nobody has so far. People may have made speeches, that is true, but people on this side of the Legislature, to my right, had an opportunity to respond. They could have said: "Ban tax discounters. Stop stealing from the poor." The best we got was that some of them made good speeches, which is fine.

The federal government, in its current attempt to do something about it -- it is difficult to judge, and we should not be unkind, but I do have to say this -- has sought to regulate theft from the poor. I do not think that does very much for the poor. It has begun to set levels of theft. It is saying that one can steal 15 per cent from a poor person, but above that one should not do it. If one steals only a little bit, it is somehow all right. I find that an offensive notion.

I do not know why we need this industry in our country. I do not think we do. I do not know why we need to legitimize it by passing federal regulations that govern the amount of theft that can occur. That is wrong. The best solution in this would be one I have heard many times, but I have not yet seen a government willing to do it; that is, ban the practice.

I know there is an innate inability on the part of governments at all levels to do anything. Surely, however, when it is the intention of the federal government to provide assistance to lower-income groups by means of tax credits, for example, it should not sit around for half a century figuring out how to deliver that system to people who are in need.

Part of the difficulty in this is that those folks who write regulations and take legislative initiatives are not poor. That is the problem. Those people who write the federal regulations or the provincial regulations do not have much of an understanding of what it means.

To poor people, a couple of hundred bucks is a lot of money. To a senior civil servant who probably earns in excess of $15,000 a year up to $70,000 or more, a couple of hundred bucks does not seem like much. However, when one does not have any cash in one's pocket, when one needs some money this winter for food, shelter and clothing for his family, one allows oneself to get ripped off. One needs the money and has no alternative.

One would have thought -- at least I would have in my little naive way -- there were financial institutions around here that would recognize two things.

First, this is a guaranteed thing; they are guaranteed their money by the federal government of Canada, and it does not get much better than that.

Second, it would have been a great public relations gesture on the part of banks, for example, to say: "All this tax discounting is unfair to the poor and lower-income people in this country. We would be happy to help you process your returns, to determine how much money you will get back from the federal government and to advance that to you without interest."

What a great, magnificent and simple gesture that would have been on the part of our banks, as financial institutions that could have afforded to do that because there was no loss possible. However, they have not taken up that opportunity.

One wonders about our society when one looks at all the people who could have done something for them over the years but have done nothing. The closest we are getting to any resolution of the problem is some federal proposals which will allow people to steal only 15 per cent of the credit that is there. That is wrong.

I am happy to support this resolution today because it brings before the Legislature a problem that bothers me a lot. It appears we are once more going to talk through an afternoon's debate where we say, "This is wrong." When we get around to this time next year, I hope we will not have this problem to talk about. I would be the happiest man in the world if tax discounters went out of business tomorrow and there were no need for federal regulations because the process was simply not allowed.

The resolution is supportable. I am happy to join with the member for Carleton East and, I sense, a lot of other members in supporting the resolution.

Mr. Wildman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I do not want to take away from the time of the members in the private members' hour, but it is rather irregular that a member whose resolution is being debated should be in the chair. I would suggest perhaps that should be rectified.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): Your point is very well made. As you know, I have not sat in the chair for very long. I will follow your advice, and my colleague the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) will replace me.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Mancini): Order. We can resume the debate.

Mr. Offer: I too would like to express my concern about tax discounting practices involving the many low-income earners in this province. Clearly, the practice of tax refund discounting and its onerous impact on the poor and disadvantaged in our society require further and immediate attention by the federal government. The Honourable Michel Côté, Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, indicated his government's intention to take some action in the area of tax discounting reform.

At the outset, let me say that I support the limited changes the federal government is contemplating, especially in the area of child tax credit reform. However, it is my feeling that the federal consumer minister has not gone far enough in his planning to implement other needed changes affecting so many low-income earners in Canada.

In a letter to Mr. Côté on August 15, Ontario's Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter) called for reforms to the federal legislation in a number of areas. He addressed the many concerns that Ontario has in connection with the present legislation and called for several changes; not the least of them was a continuation of reduced turnaround time for the mailing of most federal government refund cheques.

The minister, in his letter responding to Mr. Côté's discussion paper on the subject, pointed out that Ontario in 1977 chose to enact its own legislation in an effort to combat flagrant abuses by the tax discounting industry in our province. It provided for a maximum fee of five per cent plus a reasonable preparation charge to complete the customer's income tax return. Ontario's legislation was repealed by the government of the day when federal legislation was put in place in 1978.

The federal government's reform package proposes a fee of 15 per cent be allowed for the first $300 of a tax refund with up to five per cent allowed on any amount above that. I would like to see the federal government adopt a five per cent fee across the board. I remind the members that a 15 per cent service charge works out to the equivalent of a 60 per cent annualized interest rate.

It is my feeling that this federal initiative does not go far enough towards easing the burden on the users of these services. We would urge the federal government to reconsider the 15 per cent charge on the first $300, which would be paid by Canadians who can least afford it. It would be in the best interests of Ontario if tax rebate discounting were eliminated. Ideally, this would be the proper approach.

4:10 p.m.

In 1984, 170,000 Ontarians -- 34 per cent of the national total -- used the services of tax discounters. To my mind, this is an unacceptable figure. Users of tax discounting services are, by and large, the disadvantaged in our society. Two out of three who use these services report an average income of less than $8,000.

On the positive side, however, this government is pleased to see action on the part of the federal government with respect to reforming the disbursement policy of child tax credits to low-income earners. It has been reported that of those Canadians who discounted their tax refunds in 1984, nearly half claimed the child tax credit.

In his letter to Mr. Côté, the minister requested that alternative methods of making child tax credit payments be explored. Indeed, the federal government has stated its intention to make this benefit available to low-income earners by way of partial payments made throughout the year. Ontario is in accord with this move.

I am also heartened to see progress in the area of one of the many problems faced by disadvantaged persons in their dealings with our financial institutions in this country. I approve of the federal government's move to simplify procedures with respect to cheque-cashing privileges and loan and credit availability for the disadvantaged.

These same people are often placed in the position of having no choice other than to deal with tax discounters. I urge that information on the real costs of using tax discounters and the alternatives available to consumers be conveyed to them. Services of financial institutions must be fair and equitable for all Canadians, regardless of income.

The tax discounting industry in this country discounted tax refunds worth $275 million in 1984. They kept approximately $42 million as their share for the service. I find these figures entirely unacceptable. While I am encouraged by recent federal initiatives and reforms, it is necessary to continue to monitor the situation as it applies to the more than 170,000 Ontarians who purchase the services of tax discounters in this province.

Mr. Treleaven: I would like to tackle this resolution from a slightly different point of view. As lawyers are wont to do, I would like to speak about it in the way of "on the one hand" and "on the other hand."

The member for Carleton East used the word "abolish" in his speech, although his resolution used the word "eliminate." I was not quite clear from the wording of the resolution whether he wanted to eliminate the entire practice of tax refund discounting or only to eliminate certain practices. I now see he wishes to eliminate the entire industry.

The honourable member said near the end of his speech that it would be a good idea if the Department of National Revenue were to speed up its tax refund cheques. That is an excellent point that should be dwelt upon a bit. In his resolution the member is not dealing with the problem; he is dealing with the remedy. I think we should be dealing with the problem.

We have pollution control equipment on cars and pollution standards for air and water. If a certain industry cannot come up to the standards of pollution, or down to the standards, the answer is not to say we will change the standards; the answer is to make the industry meet the existing standards. We should not change the standards arbitrarily because somebody has trouble meeting them.

In the same way, the problem is the Department of National Revenue and the speed with which it gets back the tax cheques, which gives rise to the necessity for tax discounters. After all these years, we are still supposed to have our personal income tax returns in by the end of April.

The Ontario government has found a way around the great crush of people at the end of February getting their car licences. I do not think it is amazing to expect that the Department of National Revenue might stagger the filing of personal income tax returns that are not in connection with a business that may have a calendar year-end or a corporate fiscal year-end. That would be one possibility for removing the problem and not fiddling around with remedies: go right to the root of the problem.

I have a tax discounter in my riding. He came around to see me a few months ago, long before this resolution came up. I was most impressed with what he had to say to me, so this is on the one hand and on the other hand. I understand from him that there are a lot of fly-by-nighters; there were a lot of abuses in the late 1960s and in the 1970s.

He gave me some figures. First, he is a registered industrial accountant; so he has some experience as an accountant. He gave me some figures on what they do. For example, in his office last year the average return processed was $500; that is the cheque that comes back from the Department of National Revenue. At 15 per cent, the average charge was $67.50.

For that he had to go through a pile of things: interview the client, fill out detailed client information forms to see whether he was eligible, fill out an authorization form for the client's signature, prepare the average tax return, have the return checked by a second individual, prepare a schedule I form for the Department of National Revenue, prepare power of attorney for the client's signature, prepare a promissory note, review the completed tax return with the client, issue the cheque and then another form and so on.

The time to do all that, on average, was 124 minutes for such clients. He charged an average of $67.50 for 124 minutes. The cost of running his office, staff salaries and overhead, with no profits in there, was $25 an hour. Take $52.08 out of the average charge, and that leaves him $15.42, which netted the profit out at 22.8 per cent. If you take the losses out of there, it works out to close to an 18 per cent return on investment.

This is on the other hand, remember. This is an actual person in Oxford who is in this business, a person who is an RIA and is well qualified. Let me also put in the risk factor. There is a risk factor in discounting that knocks it down from 21 per cent or 22 per cent to 18 per cent, and that is the double filing, the false information slips and so on.

I will end by saying that the answer is in licensing and regulating, not in eliminating -- license and regulate to get rid of the fly-by-nighters, but recognize that they do perform a service. As my friend the member for Carleton East stated, the amazing growth this business has shown during the past several years indicates a need. It is obviously fulfilling a need or the people would not be there. If it were not being used, it would shrivel and die. It is there because these people need the money immediately.

Licensing and regulating to keep it clean, to keep the fly-by-nighters out, is what is necessary. Therefore, given the wording of the resolution and taking both sides into consideration, I cannot support the resolution.

4:20 p.m.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: With echoes of "restrain yourself" floating through my ears because of advice from the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan), I will not show a well-balanced view of this, and I am not going to take both sides.

Je suis fier de participer à ce débat et de parler un peu en français, comme le député de Carleton Est. C'est une autre occasion de dire que nous avons besoin de traduction simultanée dans cette Chambre.

I have been dealing with this issue for a long time. The tax discounters, these small businessmen, or large businessmen as the member for Oxford (Mr. Treleaven) would have us think of them, are in my view nothing more than parasites on the poor and they are part of a whole group of parasites. I wish the member's resolution had dealt with a lot more of them.

I think of the Money Mart people in this province who treat people with the same kind of victimization techniques by cashing cheques early and putting on a charge to make money. The people at Beneficial or H and R Block make a lot of money on the backs of the very poorest people in our society, as the member for Carleton East has shown.

We raised this in our report The Other Ontario: A Report on Poverty in Ontario, and tried to document the information. The member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies), who is no longer in the House, perhaps overlooked the fact that this was raised with his government a year and a half ago, and action should have been taken. It has been raised with the federal government time and again by my friend Patrick Johnston at the National Anti-Poverty Organization, as has been indicated by others.

I support this resolution because it calls for elimination. I was disappointed to hear the member for Mississauga North (Mr. Offer) express his desire to see the rates change. The problem is not the rates, as was indicated by the member for Carleton East. The problem is the existence of this kind of service and this means of dealing with poverty. That is what we are talking about.

These people are in operation because, as part of the means of supporting the poor, on an annual basis the poor get a lump sum of money through the tax system. It is the only time in the year when they can purchase a big-ticket item, when they can buy a new set of clothing for their children or some furniture for their home.

Their desperation for that money is the reason they go to a tax discounter and no member of this Legislature does. It is as simple as that. If they received the kind of income we receive, they would not have to go early to get back the money that is due them. They would not have to lose at least the equivalent or perhaps more than the equivalent of the increases they have had in tax credits by spending it on the profits of these financial institutions.

The member missed a fundamental point when he introduced this resolution, if one is trying to target and fix blame. The member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) was pointing in this direction. The problem is poverty, how one deals with it and the way governments have tried to come through the back door by allowing businesses to provide these nefarious services instead of dealing with the issue.

Far better than having a resolution that directs the federal government to eliminate this program and replace it with what NAPO has been calling for -- which the member for Carleton East described as loans that could be made available at a much cheaper rate -- and limiting it to that, would have been to have called on our Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) to recognize that a Christmas coat allowance is not the solution to poverty in this province, and that putting the blame on companies that come into play to provide assistance to these poor people is not the solution to poverty in this province. The solution is to make sure they have sufficient funds all year long and do not need to go to those places.

It is already a failure of this new government with its announcement of its priorities this fall, as it was of the government of the members who now are to my right, which for many years failed to recognize the needs of the poorest people in our province, and as it has been of federal governments in their responses to the poor. I wish the member's motion had talked a bit about that. He alluded to it in his speech but he did not directly affix the blame where it should lie, with the government.

Who are the people who go to these discounting places? We said they are the poor, but they are primarily women, and women with children. The horrible thing about the system the new Tory government in Ottawa has come up with is that more people are going to go to them. It will encourage the use of them.

With the 15 per cent now only on the first $300, the average family-benefits mother who will be getting a tax break of about $1,500 on average will now be in a better position to get slightly more back than she would have last year. The incentive not to wait is even greater this year than it was last year if this bill passes in Ottawa before Christmas, as I gather is the intention at that level.

The other suggestion briefly alluded to, which is not addressed in this resolution, is the whole question of how the tax rebates come back. The federal government's suggestion that they should now be broken up quarterly or more regularly --we do not know its intentions because we have not yet seen the wording of that -- is one of the most dangerous kinds of things it could do.

It is true that it will help seasonal workers get their money a little earlier, but it will not assist the family benefits mother who needs to have that money come in one lump sum or she will not be able to buy the big-ticket item. That is one of the things I hope changes in this.

I do not know where we go with this kind of resolution. It is well-meaning, it has some recommendations for us to make to the government of Canada, but we now have committees charged with a great deal of work and will have more work given the amount of legislation we are expecting out of this House in the next number of weeks.

The standing committee on social development recently received a motion passed by this House in private members' hour from the member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan). We will be trying to order that into our timetable at some time, but we have discovered we will probably not be able to do this for a number of months.

The problem we have at hand, when one looks at what we as members of this Legislature can do now, is that the problem begins in about four weeks' time. That is when people go to the doors of those companies and ask for their help. They get their money as soon as they possibly can, so they do not have to wait until April or May to get what is due to them from the government.

With this coming at this time, I cannot see any way that we as a Legislature can effectively take further action on this resolution, other than to pass it on to Ottawa. That is regrettable. As a result, we will end up with, if anything, a change from Ottawa from a straight 15 per cent to 15 per cent on five per cent, as has been described. We will not, however, have any fundamental change in government policy with respect to the elimination of this discounting procedure and the furnishing of loans through the banks and the credit unions of the provinces across the country.

I do not recall if the member had any time left to him to speak to this, but what I find frustrating, given our new status of minority government and our ability as a House to effect some change and to get committees to take on action of this sort, is that I do not know how we can do it in any kind of time frame that will affect these people.

That is so important, because it is all right for us to wait, it is all right for us to take a number of months to get this kind of a message across to Ottawa, but what we always forget, with the kinds of salaries and benefits we have in this chamber, is that those who use this system cannot wait and will not wait for us. They will, therefore, continue to be punished by these usurious practices our federal government has perpetrated in the past and which this government, in its present condition and in its past embodiment with the Tories, has allowed to continue for many years. I find that very frustrating.

Mr. Callahan: For the first time in my life I wrote out a speech, and it has all been said. I am not going to give that speech; l am going to refer to the one in my other coat pocket.

I would like to start off by saying I applaud the genuine concern of the member for Carleton East. He has confirmed in his motion the first impressions I had of that gentleman when I first met him in the House. He has raised a very sensitive issue. He has raised one that, back in the days when Ontario addressed the matter, received unanimous support of the House. It is quite obvious that everyone in this House had a caring concern for the incident.

4:30 p.m.

When we think about this, without making light of it, the immediate thought that comes to mind is of taking candy from a baby. That is really what is happening, or was happening until the federal government elected to make the payments on a quarterly basis. By performing this service, these companies were taking candy from the baby.

That is not a criticism of the companies. I am a free enterpriser and I believe legitimate businesses should be able to flourish in this province and this country in a healthy fashion. It is unfortunate, however, that the mechanisms that are allowed to exist by government in terms of trying to get funds to the people who are below the poverty line are always ill-conceived and result directly in opportunities being made available that may rebound to the detriment of those least able to defend themselves.

I do not want to be partisan about this. I believe it is an issue that should be looked at in a similar fashion to the way I urged the House to look at the issue of the recent school strike. I felt that was a matter that should be dealt with in a nonpartisan way and in a very sensitive way, much the way a family would deal with a personal problem.

I find it rather unfortunate that the present federal government, with its very large majority, has not taken a much more serious or a much more imaginative approach to looking at the banking system. There is no question that if the banking system were prepared to accept the tax rebate of a person who was obviously going to get that rebate, that person could secure a loan or secure the rebate money in advance without any discounting taking place. The bank would be assured it would receive the money since, as far as I know, the government of Canada is good for the return of income tax collected from Canadians.

I had a much longer speech in my left pocket. I threw away the one in my right pocket, but I understand time is fleeting. I urge members to pass on to Ottawa the sensitive way we wish to deal with the matter.

In closing, I would like to welcome back to the Legislature the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson). I would also like to say the member for Essex South looked very nice in the Speaker's chair.

Mr. Morin: I am extremely proud to have the support of this House. The member for Scarborough West asked, "Where does it go from here?" I will tell him my intentions.

The jurisdiction over tax discounters has been questioned already in British Columbia, where it was determined they had jurisdiction. The trial court division at the federal level also determined they had jurisdiction. There is still another level and that is what I want to pursue. I will check with the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) how far we can go.

Let us say we have jurisdiction in Ontario over tax discounters. If we pass this resolution, by accepting it, then everything will be all right. I want to pursue that. I ask for help not only from the Conservative Party but also from the New Democratic Party. Together, I know we can achieve that purpose.

COMMERCIAL VENTURES IN RURAL AREAS

Mr. J. M. Johnson moved, seconded by Mr. Sheppard, resolution 20:

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

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member has up to 20 minutes for his presentation and may reserve any portion to the end.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: For Ontario's economy to strengthen and for a better distribution of newly created wealth throughout, it only makes sense that development be encouraged in the smaller rural communities of this province.

I am very pleased to say that this resolution is very similar to the resolution my honourable friend the member for Simcoe East (Mr. McLean) tabled in the last session. I am even more pleased that the same member will speak in support of the resolution.

Rural municipalities have many positive things to offer potential industries to entice them to settle in those communities, and I will refer to these in a few minutes. These municipalities, however, are also faced with very serious limitations and they require our provincial government's assistance to overcome them. First and foremost, our smaller communities need advice and assistance in preparing proper plans for growth.

Some municipalities should, for various reasons, not grow. Others should have only limited growth and others that have unlimited growth potential should have controlled and orderly staged growth compatible with the community's future needs and wishes.

After determining the future growth plans with full public input, the government should help the municipalities establish industrial parks and provide municipal services to these parks -- roads, sewers and water. Financial assistance should be provided by the government in the form of interest-free loans repaid as industrial land is sold. The size of industrial parks could be controlled by many factors, but mainly by realistic goals set by both levels of government, provincial and municipal, to meet the needs of the local population.

Many smaller towns would be better off with several small industries employing 100 people each rather than one large company employing several hundred. This would avoid many of the problems faced by some of our northern communities which have one major industry providing most of the jobs within that community.

If the government encourages sensible and responsible industrial development at the start, it may then avoid many of the economic and social problems which occur as a result of that single industry having a downturn in the marketplace.

Having assisted the smaller communities in the planning process and the development of serviced industrial land, the next step for the Ontario government would be to assist these municipalities to advertise and promote their communities in the industrial sector.

Smaller towns do not have the financial resources to advertise and promote their communities, certainly not in competition with major cities. The government could assist in this endeavour on a collective basis rather than an individual one. It could provide prospective industries with lists of municipalities in different areas of the province and encourage industry to meet with the local people, thus giving them the opportunity to sell their own community.

While government cannot and should not dictate where industry must locate, it should encourage industry to consider the advantages of locating in various parts of our great province.

Rural communities offer industry many things. They offer a stable, loyal work force. They provide comparatively lower land costs. In addition, their picturesque locations will be a definite plus in attracting executives and professionals.

I would like to elaborate on these points. Rural communities offer a stable, loyal work force and this is very important to industry. In rural Ontario, many young men and women start to work with a company and never change jobs. My father-in-law spent more than 40 years with the same firm, and this example is not unique.

4:40 p.m.

Good companies will find that their employees will become extremely loyal, trustworthy, responsible workers and will remain with them for many years. This solves the problem many industries face today in constantly having to train new workers. If we think about it, this very important fact of a stable, loyal work force is one of the secrets of the Japanese industrial success in world markets. Most workers in Japan spend their entire career with one company.

We can offer the same benefits in rural Ontario. Rural communities provide lower land costs for both industrial and residential lots. Industrial land costs in rural Ontario are only a fraction of the cost of a comparable lot in a major city. As for residential costs, lots in some cities cost nearly as much as both the home and lot in many of the smaller communities. The cost of living is much lower in rural Ontario; so workers do not require exorbitant wages. They have the added bonus of living in our countryside and they are happy to accept a little less in monetary terms.

Imagine living within walking distance of a golf course, a curling club or trout stream; five minutes for teeing-off time on the golf course; curling four or five a times a week in the evening instead of at four, five or six in the morning, as one has to in some clubs in the city; fees less than one third of city club fees; being able to take one's kids fishing within a few miles of home and actually catching trout or bass. It is like living in heaven.

As an example, in my home town of Mount Forest, many workers and executives who move into our town with a new company refuse to leave when they are later transferred out. They want to stay. This is now their home and they try to find another job so they can stay in their new home town. They now equate their job, home and community as one and become dedicated to all three. They become extremely important to the social and economic wellbeing of their new home town.

The welfare and happiness of its labour force should and must be a prime concern of any modern industry that wishes to be competitive in the world market. This resolution, however, is not designed to force growth in communities that do not want it. The goal is the creation of a provincial mechanism that will give added strength to rural communities trying to attract the kind of industry they feel appropriate for their needs.

Municipalities must always have the right to choose the kind of development they want, if they want any industrial development, and the choice should be theirs and theirs alone. Many municipalities do not want industrial growth, and quite rightly so. They should be left in peace. Others should have only certain types of industries that are compatible with their lifestyle and environment.

We must always respect the very urgent and fundamental rights of our future generations to protect our top-quality farm land. Government should and must direct industry to unproductive agricultural lands.

If our government fails to accept the responsibility to have some input into directing the location of new industries and our major centres continue to grow, we will have more serious social problems in the future. Continued growth in the large cities will only add to the traffic congestion and increased demand on diminishing resources. As an aside, it took me 20 minutes to catch a streetcar this morning, and when I got into it, it was like being packed into a sardine can.

Traffic congestion in Metro Toronto is reaching the saturation point. Housing is at a premium, and some people are forced to live in substandard conditions, despite a very stringent and questionable rent control system. The city beaches are becoming contaminated because of inadequate sewage facilities. It may be time to cap the growth in Metro and encourage people to live and work elsewhere.

I concede the domed stadium to Metro, as well as Ontario Place, the CN Tower, the Art Gallery of Ontario, the Ontario Science Centre, the Royal Ontario Museum, major hospitals and even Queen's Park. These are major institutions that require major city surroundings. Many industries have been located in our major cities for years and should stay in place in order to provide employment as in the past.

I am not advocating a disruption of the present system; I am simply saying we should look to the future and make appropriate long-range industrial plans for the benefit of all Ontarians. Spreading growth around will ensure that all communities can retain their quality of life and make better plans for the future. New industry in rural communities will allow local councils to expand their tax base and provide quality service on a par with larger centres. As well, new industry will diversify the local economic base, thus cushioning the cycles that affect all industry, and help to lessen unemployment.

This is very apparent in northern Ontario in one-industry towns, but it is becoming very critical in many parts of rural Ontario because of the very serious economic plight of our farm community. We need industry to provide our farmers with part-time or full-time job opportunities, thus allowing them to continue to live and work on the farm while obtaining off-farm income close to home.

I am not advocating this plan as a substitute for agricultural assistance to our farmers, but as an added alternative to help them in this difficult time and also to provide employment for the large farm families who cannot all work full-time on the farm.

There is an added dimension to this problem. Many of our small rural communities are totally dependent on the financial viability of our agricultural sector. This creates a domino effect. Farmers are forced to leave their land and move to the cities to find work. Small retail and professional businesses in the rural towns are forced to close down; many people move out; schools close because of declining enrolment, and all aspects of the social and moral fibre of the community and surrounding area suffer.

If, instead, new industry locates in a small town, many positive benefits are derived. New industry encourages young people to stay in the community, keeping families together and ensuring that the local population is not overrepresented by any one age group.

I cannot overemphasize the importance of keeping families together. If young people could find work near where their parents and grandparents live, it would solve many of the costly social problems faced by today's society. Grandparents are happy to help with baby-sitting duties. It is a blessing for both parties; it alleviates the loneliness of the elderly and provides loving care for the children. This saves on costly day care services, which are not usually available in rural areas at this time.

On the opposite side of the same coin is the fact that young and middle-aged families living close to their parents can provide many of the support services needed by these elderly people, in many instances helping them to stay in their homes in a much healthier atmosphere than in expensive nursing homes. Keeping families together is reason enough for our government to accept this resolution, but I have a few more reasons to present.

Many people would like to live and work in the same community. I have mentioned some of the positive benefits of living within walking distance of one's job, but what cost do we attach to forcing our citizens to have to commute to the work place? This is very important.

Many of my constituents have to travel 50 miles, 60 miles or more every working day. At what cost? Naturally, there is the economic cost of their gas, car expenses, etc., but the more important cost is the social cost. These people spend two and three hours every working day going to and from work. This is time taken out of their lives. It is time taken away from their families, especially their children. This is a tremendous social cost. If this wasted time could be spent in the family atmosphere, would we not have fewer marriage breakups, fewer children getting into trouble and less need of professional counselling and social assistance?

4:50 p.m.

There is a saying that a family that plays together stays together. Surely our government has an obligation to try to provide job opportunities where people wish to live for the social and the economic reasons I have mentioned.

A strategy to help rural communities attract new industrial development will have both an economic and social impact on Ontario. It will strengthen the overall framework of our province by ensuring that no area grows at too fast a rate or at the expense of other communities. Spreading growth throughout Ontario will ensure that opportunities for our people develop right on their front doorstep, and the spinoff effect new growth will bring will be a greater incentive for the creation of small businesses than current provincial programs.

I would like to reserve the few minutes I have left so that I may answer any questions from the members.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member has a good four minutes remaining.

Mr. Ramsay: I am pleased to see such a resolution before the House because this is near and dear to my heart and is something I continually harp about in my riding. I have taken some positive steps in that direction by encouraging our Timiskaming Municipal Association to develop an economic development commission, which it is now seriously considering, in order to have the tools for development in our area. It is sadly needed because we do not have the resources some of the more prosperous areas of the province have.

We hope we can carry on with that project and we will approach the Minister of Northern Affairs and Mines (Mr. Fontaine). Excuse me; it is Minister of Northern Development and Mines now. I had better get it correct. I like having the name with "development" in it. That is what we are talking about today.

I speak in support of the motion. It is important and is something we should all work towards. I would like to use some specific examples having to do with my riding because I feel the motion is as applicable to northern development as to rural development.

In my riding, we have a population of 50,000 people, but they are mostly dispersed over a small group of towns, except for one town, Kirkland Lake, that is large enough and has a big enough tax base to support an economic development commission. The Kirkland Lake Economic Development Commission has an annual budget of $100,000, but it does not have the resources to mount an all-out lobbying effort to attract industries and to make the tours and trips that are necessary to attract industries.

To give an example of where we lost out and of some of the things that work against us, last month the town lost a major new manufacturing plant that was to relocate in Kirkland Lake from Quebec. We found we had a problem when the company realized Quebec has a penalty for companies that want to leave the province by closing a plant and re-establishing in another province.

We lost it, but none the less Kirkland Lake has an economic development commission, something no other town in our riding has. At the same time, we can argue that a potential exists for economic development in all the ridings, especially in the field of adding value to our resource products.

It would be nice to bring in some large manufacturing plant. Perhaps some day that will be possible. However, we have to build in a practical way with what we have. Adding value to the resource products we produce would be a good start in that direction.

The business Kirkland Lake lost would have manufactured wooden windows and doors for the entire Ontario market. It was a natural for our area where forestry is a major employer. We were sad to lose it, but we hope to continue to work at attracting such industries to our area.

Giving our small towns more clout through better funding for economic development will help them win the battle for industry and will reduce the dependence on the resource sector that is our chronic problem in the north. There are other ways the provincial government can help to foster economic diversification in small northern municipalities, particularly in the transportation field.

We own the main tool of transportation in Timiskaming, the Ontario Northland Railway. It was created as the first development road in the north and is controlled by a provincially appointed commission.

One of the biggest costs of doing business in the north is transporting our finished products to our southern Ontario markets. A canoe manufacturer in our riding reports that a major percentage of the final price of his product is the result of the shipping cost of that finished product, the canoes, to southern Ontario, where the major market is. If he could reduce that cost by half, he would have a more competitive product and could look at the potential for expanded operations.

I concur with the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. J. M. Johnson), who is proposing this resolution that the government, especially when we own some of the tools now, should work better towards some of these areas that could be developed but that have the penalty of distance from markets, which many of the rural areas have in this province.

We could reduce that penalty by subsidies. I wish we did not have to, but I think the only answer is to subsidize the cost of transporting products to the market so that we are put on the same playing field -- there is a nice expression being used lately, "level playing field" -- as other areas, the Golden Horseshoe, for instance. There would be an incentive for business to go to the rural areas, and particularly to the north, about which I am speaking, and locate there. They would not have to suffer the penalty of geography, which results in higher transportation costs.

This is something the government can be working on to give a tool to the rural areas to help that development. There is a space for an expanded government role in regional economic development, but that role must be tempered by the need for local initiative. Economic development cannot be created by government fiat. There has to be the desire and the energy at the local level, but the government can put tools in the hands of the local economic development commissions by making more funds and expertise available.

Ontario small towns have the tools, but they need the monetary incentives and the subsidized freight rates I speak of to build up their own economic futures. The local initiative is already under way in Timiskaming. As I mentioned, the Timiskaming Municipal Association, the umbrella group for all our towns and villages, is now considering the development of a regional economic development council.

I certainly support and encourage that. I hope it goes through, but it is clear we are going to need government assistance for this project. The resolution I am speaking in favour of will be a step towards putting the tools in the hands of our municipalities. The government must recognize this initiative and foster its growth. There are massive amounts of money spent on economic development in this province, but too often the control of that money is at the provincial level, not the local level.

The provincial government can foster the necessary growth in Timiskaming by supporting the local development initiatives that are coming out of my area, giving us the clout to make our own decisions. Unless the small towns in the north are given development tools, they will remain in the same position they are in now, totally dependent on the resource industries of the north.

I have some ideas on some other tools we could use by amending legislation to give more flexibility to municipalities to raise money. Possibly we should look at the idea of allowing our towns to issue industrial and mortgage revenue bonds to raise funds to help the construction or expansion of proposed new industries or commercial apartment buildings in our areas and to reduce some of that red tape so that a developer can get some land, the rezoning can be done a little more quickly and construction permits can be issued faster. We should get rid of the frustration about red tape that bothers small businesses terribly.

We also need a balanced approach, a mixed economy in our areas, and that could be best done by local planning. We could allow for separate industrial-park areas that would have lower mill rates applied to them, something like a small economic zone. This may be something we need to look at in some of our rural areas in order to be able to offer financial aid for industries to come there. Small towns in the future are going to have to compete with the bigger centres in our province, and the government must assist them in this process. They are going to need a combination of solid planning, hard work and ingenuity to sell themselves as desirable sites and locations for industry.

I applaud this motion and I give it my full-hearted support. I hope the government will take notice of what has been said today and will help to bring some funds to rural Ontario so we can have our own tools to develop our own local economies.

5 p.m.

Mr. McKessock: I am pleased to rise and support the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel on this resolution, which suggests we should assist rural municipalities to obtain more industrial growth. I feel strongly about this resolution and wholeheartedly support measures that will encourage industrial development in rural municipalities.

When employers move, they usually look at four things: vocation, lifestyle, environment and labour. As mentioned by the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel, when one locates in the rural areas one finds the site is going to be much cheaper, one will not be establishing on prime farm land -- which I will say more about later -- and the location is great.

The lifestyle is generally better. People like to live there. Recreation facilities are on the doorstep and modern malls are available. One finds people coming to our area on weekends who say, "If I could only get a job here; I would like to stay here all week, but there is no place to work." That shows the need for more industrial development in the rural areas as well.

We are not talking about building new cities, as the previous government attempted to do in Nanticoke and Pickering. We are talking about giving a little growth to the small towns and villages that are already there. The environment is good in the rural areas; there are open spaces, and good water and sewage facilities are readily available or obtainable.

Some people feel we may spoil the environment by moving industry into rural areas, and there is sometimes a backlash against it. However, we are not talking about building big cities; we are only talking about having enough growth to maintain our rural way of life and support our labour force in the area, to get some jobs so our own children can obtain employment without moving to the city when they graduate from school.

The labour force is the other area employers look at. They may look at a rural area and say the labour force is not there. However, the labour force will be wherever the jobs are; that is not a problem. I mentioned that people like to live in those areas; so there is no problem about them moving there. All we have to do is make sure there is employment for them.

If we are going to maintain industries in communities outside the metropolitan area, we must help these municipalities attract new industry. We must also help upgrade and expand the existing facilities. At present, industry in rural Ontario cannot compete with urban centres.

I am faced with a situation in my riding where a foundry providing a unique service to the area and to the province might have to close. The owner lacked the means to improve the facilities to meet requirements of the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Labour. A new, modern plant would double employment and be far more beneficial to the area and to the province. The alternative is increased unemployment, which the community cannot afford, and even more young people making the move to the cities where they hope the opportunities will be greater.

I suggest that the House consider the advantages of diversifying industry in different parts of Ontario. At present, even industries related to agriculture are attracted to southern Ontario. Industry continues to huddle in this area, even though more than half of Canada's class I farm land is in southern Ontario.

Recently we lost 4,600 acres of prime agricultural land around Brampton because of industrial development in the Toronto region. A whopping 86 per cent of our Ontario land is useless for growing food, and only about five per cent is considered prime farm land. Ontario imports more agricultural products than it exports.

I am glad to see that we as a government are committed to expanding our industrial base. We suggest that especially those industries more suited to agriculture be encouraged to locate in the outlying areas of Ontario. Industry can build on the less desirable farm land and provide much-needed jobs to the rural community.

I also support the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology in making government offices visible in rural areas. Young entrepreneurs in rural areas need to know about the programs available to them through the Ontario Development Corp. , the Northern Ontario Development Corp. and the Eastern Ontario Development Corp.

It has been suggested to me that perhaps these offices could operate under the same roof as, say, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food or with another office focusing on industry. For instance, in Owen Sound there is an office for the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology and the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation, but it is not allowed to handle Ontario Development Corp. loans. Industry, Trade and Technology and the ODC work together, and they should be together. We are 150 miles away from the ODC office in London, which is supposed to service our area.

In the immigrant-entrepreneur development program, the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology is also providing valuable services to rural communities. New businesses are often directed to rural areas, where there is the potential to increase manufacturing or tourism industries. Jobs are created and local economies are stimulated.

Our municipalities can be on the lookout for opportunities for immigrants to Ontario to provide the much-needed venture capital for viable projects in these areas. Immigrants, who generally invest $150,000 or more, are readily accepted. I suggest that we allow in entrepreneurs or immigrants with less capital to invest than this if they locate in the rural areas.

The honourable member spoke of limitations placed on smaller municipalities in attracting industrial growth. Accessibility is a major problem. Officials in my riding tell me that improving the road system into rural areas from central Ontario would help industry and tourism as well. Again, if we build the roads there, we can have the access that we are sometimes told we do not have.

We also need to look at the direct link between industry and educational facilities. The colleges and universities are concentrated in the cities. Rural areas do not have access to the same kind of expertise as is available in urban areas.

Overconcentration in cities is also a major point in favour of rural development. Industrial growth around the cities adds to traffic and pollution and inflates the price of land. I have already mentioned the loss of valuable farm land.

Decentralizing our industry would give business the option of building on less desirable land. Improved technology and better communications also mean industry can more readily locate in rural areas. Many of those who build on the edge of Toronto do so because they say they like the small-town atmosphere, which to me is another argument in favour of rural development.

In closing, I am pleased the government also recognizes the sensitivity of Ontario's rural communities and the need to preserve agricultural land. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil) seeks to guide communities, when requested, in land use planning and in the selection of future industrial areas.

This government recognizes the fundamental importance of smaller rural communities to the province. We have a strong commitment to ensuring that these communities are able to participate fully in the economic growth and development of the province. We support the aim of the private member's bill in encouraging industrial development in our small regional communities.

5:10 p.m.

Mr. McLean: The resolution on which I am about to speak is one in which I take great interest. I believe an industrial strategy for rural Ontario will benefit all Ontario, and I compliment my colleague the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel on introducing this resolution. It is very important for rural Ontario to be recognized more fully than it has been in the past.

If this policy is undertaken by the government, it has the potential of eliminating the inequities among the different regions of this province. It would do this by giving our smaller rural municipalities the knowledge and resources to advertise themselves to business and therefore strengthen our economy. There would be a fairer distribution of capital throughout Ontario.

A few weeks ago I spoke about the financial suffering of many farmers in my riding of Simcoe East. Corn and potatoes are not commanding the prices they should in the market. Pork farmers are facing the threat of a tariff on their exports to the United States, and producers of beef are losing more and more revenue as they must compete with cheaper European imports.

It is very hard for a farmer in today's Ontario to make ends meet. Consequently, to help alleviate financial strain, a farmer may desire to start a venture on the side to supplement his income. There are constraints to this, however, and that is where an industrial strategy for rural municipalities could make a difference.

Most rural municipalities do not have the manpower, the money or the expertise necessary to attract new capital; so I urge the government, and specifically the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, to take the initiative and implement this policy so these municipalities can profit from new ventures.

More enterprises in Simcoe East would provide a wider tax base and better employment opportunities, which would allow the municipalities to become self-sustaining. They would no longer have to rely on provincial assistance to help them obtain more industry. They would then be able to compete on equal tetras with their urban counterparts and would get their share of the wealth in this province and what it has to offer.

None the less, I would like to stress that if this government undertakes an industrial strategy policy, the new developments will not mean the takeover of good agricultural land. I can say this for three reasons. First, I know there are not many farmers who would give up their land for any kind of industrial development. Second, I have already told the members that in Simcoe East there are areas, such as wasteland and old landfill sites, suitable for environmentally acceptable enterprises. Third, the industry that would be most likely to be developed in Simcoe East is not the kind that would require the construction of large plants and various production facilities.

Subsequently, I see the potential for further development of the tourist industry and various related cottage industries. Our riding needs the injection of more funds for employment and economic growth. Since there is more leisure time today and self-type industries are becoming a larger part of the overall economy, I can see no reason that the people of my riding cannot benefit from these trends and become better off financially.

In the past this government has assisted with the development of many tourist resorts and attractions in Simcoe East, which have enhanced not only the area but also the economy. Nevertheless, I emphasize that I do not believe tourism is the only industry that can be developed in Simcoe East.

For example, members know of the great success the government, concerned citizens and industry had in getting Mitsubishi to establish itself in our area after RCA decided to close its plant a few years ago. By 1988, this company will have created almost 600 permanent and invaluable jobs; so the people in my constituency know what can evolve when initiatives are undertaken to encourage growth in the private sector.

I agree with my colleague the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel that an industrial strategy would give the needed strength to Ontario's rural municipalities, especially those trying to attract the kind of industry they feel is the most appropriate for their needs.

I believe farmers, being the hardest hit in my riding, would actively participate in new enterprises if these were somehow attracted to the riding. These people are educated and skilled. I see no reason for them not using their entrepreneurial skills to increase economic growth unless they are not given the opportunity to do so. If this type of program were introduced, it would play an integral part in the essential revitalization of many of the province's rural economies.

In conclusion, as this resolution appears to have the support of many members from all three caucuses, I strongly urge this government to develop a program of industrial strategy for rural municipalities for implementation in the near future. In this manner, this province will have a stronger and more stable economy, which will enable the rural municipalities to become more competitive, diversified and independent.

Mr. Wildman: I rise in support of this resolution proposed by the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel. I will make a couple of comments, though, about the remarks made by my colleagues from the Conservative Party and my colleague the member for Grey (Mr. McKessock), who painted a rather idyllic picture of rural Ontario.

While I am a member representing a northern riding and live in a rural area -- I choose to live there and like to live in rural Ontario -- there is another side to rural Ontario which should be recognized. While we do have lovely rivers, lakes and even golf courses, we also have the low wage rates the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel talked about. He talked about them in a complimentary fashion. I find that a little hard to accept. Frankly, we do have low wage rates in rural Ontario, but it is not something of which we should be proud.

The honourable member also suggested that in rural Ontario many workers remain with the same company for their entire working lives. That is true. It is going to be less true in the future as technology develops, but that is true. For that to be the case in an industrial firm -- and the member pointed to Japan as an example -- we also need a loyal management, and not just a loyal work force.

Management needs a business approach that does not treat labour as a commodity, but deals with its employees, its workers, as people, and is loyal to those people. Unfortunately, that has not been the history or the case in North America. Developing an industrial strategy for rural Ontario is not going to produce that kind of situation unless there is significant change in the whole approach to our economy.

I would like to support the resolution by pointing to a number of the problems we have in rural northern Ontario. One of the reasons we need more economic development in rural northern Ontario is that we have such an outflux of young people who cannot find jobs in their own home communities and, for that matter, cannot even find jobs in the urban communities in northern Ontario. They have to come to southern Ontario to look for work. That is a serious problem that must be addressed.

5:20 p.m.

We have another problem in rural areas. I will use the township where I live as an example. We have absolutely no industrial development. We have very little commercial development. Most of the tax base is on residential and farm development. As a result, in some of the municipalities in my area, 75 per cent of the local property taxes support education. In many other parts of the province, residents and municipal politicians are upset because up to 50 per cent of their local property taxes support education.

If we are going to be able to support the educational and social institutions that are necessary in a modern society, we must have industrial development, particularly if we do not have the tax reform that is required but that governments over the years have been unwilling to implement.

In northern Ontario, we have a resource-based economy, which leads to dependency. We are also very vulnerable because the towns that do have industry are basically one-industry towns. The jobs and small businesses in those communities are vulnerable to corporate decisions made in the privacy of the boardroom, usually located in Toronto or New York, decisions that take little account of the wellbeing of the local communities and the future of jobs and society in the rural areas of northern Ontario.

I will use the example of iron ore. Over the past 10 years, more than half the work force in iron ore in northern Ontario has disappeared, mainly because companies have been shifting their production to United States sources.

For instance, the town of Wawa is dependent on the Algoma Steel Corp. Wawa used to produce almost 100 per cent of the iron ore used by Algoma Steel. It is now down to something in the neighbourhood of 60 per cent and is going to drop to about 40 per cent. Algoma Steel has a share of the Tilden mine in Michigan and is required to use a certain portion of the production of that mine. As a result, that mine is supplying Algoma Steel in Sault Ste. Marie at a greater and greater rate. What does this mean for the future of Wawa, a town that has tourists and industry but is basically dependent on Algoma Steel Corp.?

In northern Ontario, we generally export our raw materials, and that means we export jobs. Seventy-five per cent of the productive forests are in the north, but 60 per cent of the jobs in manufacturing related to timber, lumbering and pulp and paper are located in southern Ontario.

Northern communities create the wealth this province enjoys and yet are deprived of the social, health and cultural amenities taken for granted in most southern Ontario communities, including rural southern Ontario communities. We have an unstable economy that is affected by fluctuations in markets and the depletion of resources. That means we have fewer opportunities for youth and women.

Over the years, governments of whatever stripe in this province and country have accepted the situation. They may not like it but they accept it because they do not believe it can be changed. When an iron ore mine closes or limits its work force, the answer is, "We will replace those jobs with jobs in some other mine such as gold at Hemlo," and the cycle continues. We continue the boom-bust cycle we have had to endure for years.

We have had study after study of the need for diversification of the economy of northern Ontario. The latest one is the study done by the Royal Commission on the Northern Environment. Over the years, the main growth industry in northern Ontario has been consultancy. One consultant after another has been hired by a southern Ontario government to study the problems of the north. Then it puts the studies on the shelf to gather dust. The latest study by Mr. Fahlgren took eight years and cost $12 million. It has been out for three or four months. We have asked for the government's response to the recommendations.

The Minister of Northern Development and Mines has indicated he is going to come out with more development in the north. In response to that, I will just say that any recommendations that apply, that are useful and that should be implemented north of the 50th parallel, should be applied to the whole of northern Ontario north of the French River.

That report, frankly, was weak on economic diversification. We believe what is required is the political will to diversify the economy of the one-industry towns of northern Ontario and of rural northern Ontario. We must have a tomorrow fund, a fund that is set up on the basis of the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund, which is based on the wealth gained from the extraction of our resources; an ongoing fund that then could be used at the local level to assist in the development of industry.

We have the northern Ontario development fund announced by the minister, but it is not quite what we are asking for and we hope the ministry will move in that direction. We need to do something to face the situation that our forestry industry may be in trouble in the near future and we have to diversify the economy.

We must have an industrial strategy; we must have the political will. For that reason I support the resolution proposed by the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel. I support it particularly because the member who is suggesting it has never been a member of the government. If this member had been a member of the Treasury benches when the Conservatives were on that side of the House, I would have said this was a rather hypocritical resolution. However, I would never say that about the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel.

Mr. Reycraft: I want to thank my friend from Mount Forest, the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel, for the resolution he has placed before us this afternoon. It addresses a matter that concerns us for a number of reasons.

It addresses the whole issue of the disproportionately low amount of industrial and commercial development in the many municipalities of rural Ontario. It also addresses the absence of employment opportunities in those same areas. The resolution he has put before us today is similar and complementary to the resolution I had before this House about a month ago on October 31.

There is a difference between the two in that this resolution suggests the province should provide municipalities with expertise and financial resources to enable them to enhance their position in the competitive field of attracting industrial growth. My resolution really dealt with providing incentives from the province to those industries to encourage them to locate in the small urban areas within rural Ontario.

Both proposals basically have a common objective: to attract and locate more industrial and commercial development in the small urban communities of rural Ontario. Both resolutions recognize the urgent need to encourage numerous long-term strategies to enhance the financial viability of our rural communities.

The disappearance of Ontario family farms is producing some alarming social spinoffs. I talked about those a month ago and I would like to reflect briefly on some of them now.

Families are forced to move away to try to find a better life somewhere else. They are forced to do so because they are unable to maintain the financial viability of the farms they have had for many years.

5:30 p.m.

Young people from those farm families and young people who have grown up in families other than farm families are also forced to leave rural Ontario because, as the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) has pointed out, there are no employment opportunities for them in those communities. If jobs could be had in those communities, those young people and those farm families would not be lost to the community. We need those people there and we need them there right now. Most of the small urban centres are faced with a rapidly ageing population because the young people are moving elsewhere to the large urban centres in this province.

In addition, the enhancement of employment opportunities would provide a supplementary source of income for many farm families, or for many family farms that are operating on a shared basis by brothers or brothers' families, for example, where one of them or a spouse or other members of the family can find income off the farm that will help the overall family farm to retain its financial ability.

I note that the problem is being recognized now by a growing number of experts in agriculture. In yesterday's London Free Press, David Douglas, director of the school of rural planning and development of the University of Guelph, noted that the outlook for the average family farmer is rather gloomy. He is quoted as saying: "You can either throw in the towel and walk away or seek an alternative. The family farm and all it means is under tremendous pressure."

Those words were spoken by Mr. Douglas at the annual convention of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture in Toronto, a convention that also listened to another very eminent speaker, one Kenneth Farrell, who is the director of the United States National Centre for Food and Agricultural Policy. He also addressed this matter of the financial problems confronting family farmers.

He said: "I see a distinct squeeze on the farm in the middle, the typical family farm of, say, 200 acres. They will be reduced significantly."

This financial upheaval in the family farm is tearing apart the social fibre of our rural communities. It is very clear to all of us that the economic life of a community is intertwined very closely with its social and moral life. We are seeing the impact of this migration of young people and of young farm families from rural Ontario to large urban areas on a number of different areas. We are seeing its effect on our schools, on our churches, on our service clubs and on our many community organizations.

The resolution addresses another very important issue; that is, the need for a broader assessment base in all the rural municipalities of this province, particularly the need for commercial and industrial assessment. I do not know of a rural municipality that is not finding it difficult to meet its increasing cost obligations. By virtue of inflation alone, the costs are growing at a very rapid rate.

There are basically only three ways a municipality can increase its revenues. It can seek and obtain increased provincial support, something that many municipalities seek but something the Treasurers of this province have found very difficult to provide over the past number of years. The municipality can also increase its base by increasing the tax rate so that every property owner in the municipality pays more.

There is a much better way, however, and that is by increasing the assessment base. A measure such as this resolution would help municipalities to do that. It would help them to meet their commitments to their local residents and to their school boards without having to increase property taxes or, alternatively, reduce services. Municipalities could even look to expanding services and school boards could look to providing better opportunities for the students they serve.

Some have expressed concern about the impact of a resolution such as this on agriculture in the province because it might lead to scattered development, but that need not occur. There are in the many small urban communities in rural Ontario a great number of sites that could be used for industrial development, sites that are already designated for nonagricultural use. Much of that land is already serviced and could be developed for industrial purposes without any adverse affect on agriculture.

In this competitive area of industrial development, it is very difficult for the small urban communities in rural Ontario to compete. Their large urban counterparts have large budgets with sophisticated measures to attract economic development. Many of them have economic development officers and some of them very large departments. As it stands now, our small urban municipalities have little chance of attracting a significant degree of industrial growth.

I agree wholeheartedly with the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel. If the government of Ontario could provide the municipalities with expertise and financial resources, these deserving rural communities would stand a far better chance as players in this highly competitive field. We would be helping them to help themselves which, to my way of thinking, is what good government is really all about.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Northumberland. I believe you have about six and a half minutes.

Mr. Sheppard: I think six and a half minutes is all I need. I am happy to be speaking on the resolution as brought forth by my colleague the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel. I believe this resolution should be an excellent solution to encourage more economic growth in Ontario's rural municipalities.

Everyone in this House has recognized the importance of small businesses in this province's economy. Those businesses account for about 42 per cent of the total employment in Ontario. Between 1970 and 1984, three out of four new jobs were created by these small businesses. Small- and medium-sized businesses constitute an overwhelming majority of manufacturers in Canada.

Unfortunately, small businesses have a tendency to establish themselves in or around major centres usually because these centres have more to offer to support the growth of new businesses. I am speaking of what we call the Golden Horseshoe. These are very serious limitations placed on the province's small and rural municipalities and their ability to attract industrial growth. As a result, they lose opportunities to create a more diversified economy.

This is a time when rural communities could use additional investment growth, especially when agriculture is struggling and the present government is paying people to get out of farming. Most rural municipalities have traditionally remained small industrial communities, as they have relied on that one sector for their economic wellbeing. Whether that one industry is farming, a mill or a mine, the municipalities have not developed the ability to attract new businesses and this is proving to be detrimental to our rural areas.

With greater population, many of the more urbanized municipalities have more tax revenues and thus more financial resources for the promotional activities necessary to attract businesses. For example, many of the more urbanized centres have business development directors who are specifically hired to promote the region to prospective businesses looking for an area to set up shop.

5:40 p.m.

In Northumberland, we have an organization called the Diamond Triangle Economic Commission. Headed by a manager, Frankie Liberty, the commission represents the towns of Cobourg and Port Hope and the townships of Hope and Hamilton. This organization specializes in the advertising and promotion of industry in our area. The potential is there for development and expansion.

Similar commissions should be established in communities where none exist at present. Many areas in my riding, such as Port Hope, Campbellford, Cobourg, Colborne, Brighton and Hastings, already have good industrial sites. Some of the municipalities are close to Highway 401, the Trent River, Lake Ontario and CN and CP Rail. Because of this, the promotion of transportation would be a key to more growth in my riding.

Location is another sector that could be promoted. Northumberland is only a one-hour drive from Metropolitan Toronto and an hour from central Ontario and the Kingston area. For the shipping of goods, Port Hope is only about 70 miles away.

Another area for promotion is tourism. Northumberland is very scenic and full of attractions with historical background, not to mention the beautiful lakes which are excellent for outdoor buffs. I live on the south shore of Rice Lake, known as the home of the mighty muskie. If anyone wants to fish, let him come to Rice Lake and I will take him out in a beautiful boat.

Recently, the owners of Camp Barcovan expanded their facilities to include a large recreation facility with swimming pool, children's playroom and games room. This facility employs three students in the summer. More of these facilities are required and there are plenty more to be developed.

In Cobourg, the heart of Northumberland riding, we have a new council, which I hope, with a new mayor and some new council members, will develop a harbourfront in that part of Cobourg. Unemployment is above average in Northumberland, compared to the rest of Ontario, and new industry would help ease this problem. Rural communities offer a stable, loyal work force. New industry would also encourage young people to stay in the community as opposed to moving to urban centres where the possibility of securing employment is stronger.

In a nutshell, there is potential to develop a strong labour force in Northumberland. There is evidence that the people in my riding, as in others, are trying very hard to attract more industry to the area. This is done mostly through the local chamber of commerce and commissions such as the Diamond Triangle Economic Commission; yet the municipalities generally do not have enough resources to promote this thing.

Small rural municipalities need the expertise and financial resources so they will be equally able to compete with their rural counterparts. Many believe this lack of funds is partly to blame for the slower growth and development in these areas. How many small businesses have been known to collapse or fold because of lack of funds to keep them going? In some cases, it is difficult for businesses in central and eastern Ontario to obtain funds for programs such as the small business development corporation program. It is well known that the majority of the SBDC investment ends up in western Ontario or Metropolitan Toronto.

I would ask the other two parties to support my colleague's resolution because it is a good one. I hope everyone supports it.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I would like to thank the members for their support and their very positive and constructive ideas. I particularly thank the members for Timiskaming (Mr. Ramsay), Grey, Simcoe East, Middlesex (Mr. Reycraft) and Northumberland (Mr. Sheppard). They were all very supportive and brought out other valuable points of view that were very constructive for this resolution.

My good friend the member for Algoma was at least partly supportive and for that I should be thankful. The member for Middlesex brought in a resolution of a similar nature a few weeks ago and I was very pleased to speak in support of it. The two resolutions may have some impact, and I hope they will encourage the government to take action that will be of benefit to our rural way of life.

This is not just a resolution; it is an idea, a goal I have worked towards for many years. Before I was elected to this assembly in 1975, I served for many years as mayor, councillor and chairman of the industrial committee in my home town of Mount Forest. I also served many years in the businessmen's association and the Mount Forest District Chamber of Commerce. The goal always was to help our town achieve industrial growth and to attract new industry for the many reasons I have outlined today. With the support of the members of this Legislature, we will move one step closer to achieving this goal, which will benefit all Ontarians.

I will sum up my proposed industrial strategy.

1. The Ontario government should develop an overall industrial plan for the province, taking into consideration the very real needs of rural and northern Ontario.

2. The government must provide planning expertise for smaller communities, financial assistance to provide services required, and advertising and promotion to attract the interest of potential industries.

3. The government should assume the role of co-ordinator, bringing together both parties -- the industrialists and the town representatives.

For the rest, it is up to the leaders in the individual communities to sell themselves. Rural Ontario wants and needs job opportunities. It needs industry. I humbly request the support of all honourable members for this very important resolution that will be of benefit to all Ontarians.

BIRTH OF MEMBER'S CHILD

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I know this may be irregular, but I am sure that you and all members of the House will join me in wishing best wishes to our colleague the member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Morin-Strom), whose wife Bernadette delivered a 10-pound, one-ounce baby girl this afternoon.

TAX DISCOUNTERS

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Morin has moved resolution 22.

Motion agreed to.

COMMERCIAL VENTURES IN RURAL AREAS

Mr. Speaker: Mr. J. M. Johnson has moved resolution 20.

Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Conway: I am sorry to have been delayed. I was helping to unveil portraits of my friends, the members for York Mills (Miss Stephenson) and St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman) and the former member for Kingston and the Islands, Keith Norton, at the Ministry of Education.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: What a bizarre thing to do.

Mr. Breaugh: Why would you do a thing like that?

Hon. Mr. Conway: It was wonderful company. Four ministers in one year. Can any department stand that?

Mr. Speaker: Maybe you could unveil the business of the House.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I would like to indicate the business of the House for the remainder of this week and next. This evening we will debate the procedural affairs committee report 4, to be adjourned. Tomorrow, Friday, November 29, we will have the estimates of the Ministry of Government Services.

On Monday, December 5, we will complete the estimates of the Ministry of Government Services and, if time permits, we will commence the estimates of the Management Board of Cabinet. In the evening, we will have second reading and committee of the whole House, if required, on Bills 43 and 57.

On Tuesday, December 6, we will deal with legislation in the following order, as time permits, in the afternoon and the evening: second reading of Bill 51; committee of the whole House on Bills 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, and, if required, Bill 51; second reading and committee of the whole House, if needed, on Bills 44, 22, 11, 12, 13, 34 and 3.

On Wednesday, December 4, the usual three committees may sit.

On Thursday, December 5, in the afternoon, we will consider private members' items standing in the name of the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) and the member for Wentworth North (Mr. Ward). In the evening, we will have second reading of Bills 54 and 55.

On Friday, December 6, we will consider the estimates of the Management Board of Cabinet. I will also repeat formally the information indicated earlier, that we will commence Monday evening sittings on Monday, December 2.

The House recessed at 5:51 p.m.

November 28, 1985

DEATH OF MAX SALTSMAN

ANNUAL REPORT, PROVINCIAL AUDITOR

PREMATURE DISCLOSURE OF COMMITTEE REPORT

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

ANNUAL REPORTS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

ANNUAL REPORT, PROVINCIAL AUDITOR

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

ANNUAL REPORT, PROVINCIAL AUDITOR

NIAGARA RIVER WATER QUALITY

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

HOMEMAKER PROGRAM

ENERGY FROM WASTE PLANT

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

USE OF TIME IN QUESTION PERIOD

MOTION

COMMITTEE SITTING

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PETERBOROUGH RACING ASSOCIATION LIMITED ACT

CITY OF KITCHENER ACT

HEALTH DISCIPLINES AMENDMENT ACT

ANSWER TO QUESTION IN ORDERS AND NOTICES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

TAX DISCOUNTERS

COMMERCIAL VENTURES IN RURAL AREAS

BIRTH OF MEMBER'S CHILD

TAX DISCOUNTERS

COMMERCIAL VENTURES IN RURAL AREAS

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE