Hansard Transcript 1987-Jan-15 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

That in the opinion of this House, the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) in conjunction with the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Nixon) should immediately move to increase the farm property tax rebate from 60 per cent to 70 per cent.

The Deputy Speaker: The honourable member has up to 20 minutes for his presentation and he may reserve any portion of it for the windup.

Mr. Pollock: I am pleased and proud to introduce this resolution. It is straightforward and self-explanatory. This is an issue which is of great concern to me and many of my constituents. I hope all members of this House will support this resolution, particularly the Minister of Agriculture and Food and the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmâitre), because theirs would be the two ministries that would implement the increase.

As the resolution states, I feel the government should move quickly to increase the farm property tax rebate from 60 to 70 per cent. The implementation of this would require only minimum changes. I also feel that if the government were to increase the farm property tax rebate, it would show it really does care about the farm community, contrary to popular belief.

This type of rebate is considered to be one of the fairest types of assistance, because not only a chosen few but everyone in the farming business would be helped. The farm property tax rebate was introduced some years ago to adjust for inequities in the property tax system. The rebate was increased from 50 to 60 per cent a few years ago by the Progressive Conservative government. I feel the current financial crisis facing farmers in Ontario justifies the increase to 70 per cent.

For the benefit of some members who may not be familiar with the way the farm property tax rebate works, I will briefly outline the basic criteria. Application forms are sent out on an annual basis on information provided by the municipality and the assessment department. For a person to be eligible, the land must be farm land which is currently in use as farm land. The farm must produce either $5,000 worth of products and goods in eastern or northern Ontario or $8,000 in southern Ontario. If the land is sold for development, all the money rebated to the farmer over the immediate past 10 years has to be paid back with interest at 10 per cent.

The definition of what the farm may produce is quite broad. It is to produce anything that is useful to man. This includes everything from Christmas trees to nurseries. Also eligible are horse-breeding farms and farms that raise fur-bearing animals.

Further, if a house is situated on the farm land, it is eligible for a rebate of 60 per cent, provided the house is occupied by persons who are involved in actual farming. The rebate is paid only after the minimum 60 per cent of the applicable property taxes are paid by the farmer.

Corporations which are at least 50 per cent Canadian-owned and which meet other criteria that I have already mentioned are eligible for the 60 per cent property tax rebate.

In general, this system has worked well over the past years, but as with everything else, it must be kept in tune with the times. That is why an increase to 70 per cent is warranted.

There was a proposal a few years ago to have the system changed and to have a farmer pay tax on his house and one acre of land. This sounds practical until one starts to take a look at the overall process. For example, for a farmer in a predominantly farming municipality, possibly 80 or 90 per cent of the money to run that municipality comes from the farming community. To take the taxes off the land and the farm buildings would mean that the mill rate on the house and one acre of land no doubt would have to double.

A municipality has to have money to operate. That is a recognized fact. Proponents of this system suggest the government might even give a grant to the municipalities to make up for such a loss of tax revenue. This would mean the tax rebate would be paid to the municipality and not to the farmer. The municipality is not totally made up of farmers; so the nonfarming residents in that particular municipality would also be getting some of the assistance.

I maintain that we have a good system in place, so why change it? The farm tax rebate is working well. It just has to be updated to 70 per cent.

The financial problems facing farmers in Ontario are well known and well documented. While most of the people who are employed in other industries receive an effective wage increase of an average of four per cent, the farmer is faced with a reduction in income on cash crop farming of 30 per cent.

Reduced commodity prices caused by the trade war between the United States and the European Community are a main contributing factor. Another financial burden of the farmer is the increased property tax. In a community with which I am familiar, the property tax went up by 7.9 per cent and is likely to go up by another 7.9 per cent next year. In other areas, the taxes are going up at an even greater rate.

Another cost that the farmer must absorb is the extremely high insurance rate. This province is still in a period of rapidly rising liability insurance rates. The small family farm also has to absorb a large portion of the cost of environmental insurance as a result of the implementation of the spills bill. One farmer said his liability insurance went up by $100. The fact of the matter is that the small farm owner is not the one responsible for the greatest amount of pollution; it is primarily the large corporations. A fairer system to establish the rates charged to the farmer could be worked out to assist these people through a very tough financial time.

1010

The farm tax rebate is one of the fairest rebates of subsidies paid to farmers. Some farmers invest heavily in farm machinery and farm land in order to produce more food. In some cases, they receive an interest rebate on the money borrowed. If the end result is that the farmer makes less than the minimum wage, then I would have to say that particular subsidy is a subsidy to the processors, the supermarkets and the consumers, not the farmer.

After the government was sworn into office on the front lawn of the Legislature, it promised the world. It said it would double the amount of money going to the farming community. That has not happened. In my estimation, actual money going into the Ministry of Agriculture and Food will be about 1.5 per cent of the total budget committed, while 1.4 per cent of the Ontario budget was paid to farmers back in 1981-82. Those were difficult times for everyone -- the farmer, the small businessman and, in some cases, big business.

During 1985-86, the economy certainly has improved for the business community but not for the farmer. One of the reasons for this is that the European Community gives large subsidies to farmers in those countries and, as a result, the American government is subsidizing its farmers to the tune of billions of dollars. The government of Saskatchewan has increased its subsidies, as have Alberta and Manitoba. Here in Ontario the farmer receives only about 1.5 per cent of the total budget committed, an insignificant amount above what he received during the recession and nowhere near double.

Looking back over the past year, I have real doubts about how committed the Liberal government is in seeing a financially sound agricultural industry in Ontario. In the face of setbacks suffered by various sectors of industry, the minister seems extremely reluctant to offer any assistance. By increasing the farm property tax rebate to 70 per cent, the government will be helping farmers of the province who are falling behind the inflation rate.

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture has reported that farm incomes for 1985 are at only 55 per cent of the 1973 level. I am certain that if other sectors of the economy were forced to survive on 55 per cent of the income they were earning 13 years ago, Ontario would be in drastic financial shape. The truth is that Ontario is one of the most prosperous provinces in Canada and Canada is one of the richest countries in the world. It is extremely unjust that the people who feed the people of Canada as well as the people of many other countries of the world are forced to live at the poverty level.

A move by this government to help farmers get through these rough times would be a great step forward. The minister has the resources at his disposal. Let him take this small step and help our food producers.

The cost of increasing the tax rebate from 50 per cent to 60 per cent a few years ago was in the neighbourhood of $20 million annually. The cost of an increase from 60 per cent to 70 per cent would, no doubt, be in the $20 million area again. I regard this as $20 million well spent.

The Deputy Speaker: Does the member wish to reserve the remaining time for his wrapup?

Mr. Pollock: I do.

Mr. Hayes: I want to compliment the member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Pollock) for introducing this resolution to increase the farm property tax rebate from 60 per cent to 70 per cent. A resolution of this nature will help farmers somewhat. When a resolution such as this is introduced in the Legislature, whether it is passed or not, more than anything else it further highlights the problems the agricultural sector is faced with today.

Even though I support this resolution, I cannot help but think that here we are coming up with another Band-Aid solution to a very serious problem, another piece of legislation that will help a little in the immediate future but does not address the real problem, and that is the question of commodity prices or fair prices for farmers' commodities.

I do not want to get off the track, but it upsets me to have this government continue to introduce programs that help some farmers when it seems to be so hesitant in dealing with the real problems in agriculture. Existing programs help in some cases, and this resolution to increase the farm property tax rebate will also help in some cases. However, why is this government so hesitant in tackling the real problem head on? Why is this government and why was the last government so afraid to push for supply management? Are they waiting for family farms to disappear totally, letting the multinationals take over as they have in other industries?

We are in a situation today where we have to put more funding into agriculture and also implement incentives to encourage farmers to stay on the land. Rather than continue to put Band-Aids on a large wound, we should be doing everything in our power to give farmers a just price for their commodities and their labour. That is supply management. When this is accomplished, we will not have to discuss government programs and subsidies nearly as much as we do now in this Legislature.

I support this resolution wholeheartedly. I know it is a step in the right direction to help farmers immediately, but let us not stop here; let us get some political will in this House and work seriously towards preserving the family farm in Ontario and Canada.

Mr. G. I. Miller: I am pleased to rise this morning and have the opportunity to speak on resolution 37, brought forward by the member for Hastings-Peterborough, "That in the opinion of this House, the Minister of Agriculture and Food in conjunction with the Minister of Revenue should immediately move to increase the farm property tax rebate from 60 per cent to 70 per cent."

I am a farmer and also an elected representative for one of the most agriculturally productive areas in all of Canada. I know about the difficulties facing the family farm. We have many tobacco farmers in our area and, as we all realize, this is an industry that has been hit very heavily in the past few years. It is our responsibility as members of the Legislature to take any necessary steps that will help ensure that farming remains a viable economic alternative. It is this responsibility that compels me to support the resolution put forward here today.

The Ontario farm tax reduction program is not perfect; I do not think any government program is. The farm tax rebate program does, however, put money back into the farm economy of Ontario and that must be considered the bottom line.

The resolution put forward here today asks that we support an increase from the current level of farm tax rebate assistance. The farm tax rebate program was established in 1970 under the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Act. In 1970, 1971 and 1972, the level of assistance was 25 per cent of the municipal and school tax base on farm assessment. This was increased to 50 per cent in 1973 and to 60 per cent in 1984. The member for Hastings-Peterborough is asking that in 1987 the rebate level be increased again, this time to 70 per cent.

1020

The farm tax rebate program is unique in that it is a co-operative effort of three provincial ministries. The Ministry of Agriculture and Food provides the overall guidance and funding, the Ministry of Revenue provides the assessment information and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs provides the administration. The advantages or disadvantages of the current three-ministry system is something that should perhaps be debated at another time.

The farm tax rebate program does not provide tax rebates to farmers; it provides tax rebates to land owners, and therein lies one of the inequities of the present system. In order to receive the farm tax rebate, one does not have to be a farmer. All one has to do is to own property assessed as a farm for the current taxation year. There is no doubt that a great many land owners in Ontario live on and farm their property. These are the people this program is designed to assist.

There are, however, some glaring examples of land owners who are not farmers in the true sense but who are receiving substantial rebate assistance under the program. In 1982, Stelco Inc. received $55,697 in rebates. In 1983, Dofasco Inc. qualified for $35,807. These companies qualified for farm tax rebates because they owned agricultural land that was intended for industrial development. In one five-year period, Windfields Farms Ltd., one of Canada's most prosperous horse farms, received $100,000 from the rebate program.

I have brought forward these examples in an effort to ensure that members of this House have a clear and complete picture of the program we are discussing this morning. In that same spirit, I would like to take the time now to outline the full eligibility requirements for the farm tax rebate program.

In order to qualify under the current program, the property in question must be assessed as a farm. The applicant must be a citizen or resident of Canada, at least 60 per cent of the property tax must already have been paid, and the property on its own, or as part of a larger farming operation, must produce a minimum value of $8,000 worth of farm products in a normal production year in southern Ontario or $5,000 a year in northern Ontario.

If these criteria are met, the property is eligible for farm tax rebate. Farm owners who have had their farm tax rebate appeal denied are provided with an avenue of appeal through the Farm Tax Rebate Appeal Board. This board is made up of seven independent farmers from across Ontario. As I mentioned earlier, a farm property in southern Ontario must produce $8,000 worth of farm produce per year to qualify for the tax rebate program. To reach the $8,000 figure a farmer would have to grow five acres of tomatoes or 31 acres of corn or sell eight head of beef cattle for slaughter or keep four sows from farrow to finish.

One of the big questions surrounding the farm tax rebate program is whether the money is getting out to the people who need it the most. As is the case with any financial assistance program, this question must be answered before it can be judged a success. The farm tax rebate is not, as we have already seen, limited to the farmer in financial difficulty. The money in the program is allocated on a universal basis to the farm property owners of this province.

If we increase the rebate to 70 per cent, as this resolution suggests, we will increase the assistance to those who do not need it as well as to those who do need it. There should be no question that the property tax burden on farmers is substantially greater than that on nonfarmers.

The question is the point at which the rebate becomes higher than the amount needed to bring rural property taxes to the same level as those in urban areas.

When the farm tax rebate program was first introduced in 1970, there were 224,000 farm properties considered eligible for the rebate; the program cost that year was something in the neighbourhood of $15.8 million. The rebate was increased to 50 per cent. There were approximately 158,000 properties considered eligible; that is about 70 per cent of the 1970 figure. The total dollar value of the program in 1973 was approximately $28.1 million. In 1984, the rebate was increased again, this time to 60 per cent. The number of properties considered eligible was 149,000, 33 per cent below the number in 1970. The farming community is decreasing.

The cost of the farm tax rebate program in 1984 was $93.9 million. In the 1985-86 fiscal year, 154,000 properties received rebates totalling more than $101 million. The program budget for the 1986-87 fiscal year is expected to be $104 million.

In 1970, the average farm property received a rebate of $71. In 1973, that figure was $177. In 1984, the average rebate was about $627. In 1985, it was more than $655. For 1986, that figure is expected to be close to $700 per property.

There is no doubt that a good many of these dollars reach the farmers who need them the most. Unfortunately, some of this money is also reaching those farmers who are able to make it financially without government assistance.

The farm tax rebate program was originally conceived as a way to correct the inequities of the property tax system. The farmers of this province were paying more than their fair share under the current farm tax rebate system.

The Ontario government is committed to the concept of helping farmers help themselves. I think we have done that. The provincial budget for agriculture has increased by 39 per cent. In the fiscal year 1983-84, the province's budget for agriculture was $303 million. In 1986-87, that figure is expected to be more than $430 million. We have committed ourselves to programs designed to put money back into the pockets of deserving farmers. The best example of this is the recently announced OFFIRR Plus program, the Ontario family farm interest rate reduction.

As my time is running close to being finalized, I would like to say in conclusion that although I have some reservations concerning the program, I will be offering my support to the resolution brought forward here today.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I also am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak in support of the resolution of the member for Hastings-Peterborough, "That in the opinion of this House, the Minister of Agriculture and Food in conjunction with the Minister of Revenue should immediately move to increase the farm property tax rebate from 60 per cent to 70 per cent."

While a 10 per cent increase does not seem to be very much, it would amount to approximately $18 million to $20 million this year and would be money well spent as it would help alleviate some of the serious financial problems farmers are facing these days in the world marketplace.

The farm property tax rebate is one of the best benefits Ontario farmers receive from the government; indeed, it is the largest single annual agricultural expenditure made by the Ontario government. This year, the estimated expenditure is set at $104 million for this program. Compared to the millions of dollars going to our western farmers, especially in Alberta and Saskatchewan, through their new provincial subsidization programs, this 10 per cent increase would be a very small amount of money to spend to assist further our Ontario farmers.

1030

No one knows the cost of the US farm bill, so called, but it is estimated that it will cost the American taxpayers anywhere from $20 billion to $30 billion a year -- billions of dollars, not millions. The European Community also financially subsidizes its farmers so heavily that many farmers in Europe receive 50 per cent to 70 per cent of the cost of production of food from their governments. Our Ontario farmers are forced to compete in this very unfair world marketplace. Surely an increase in the farm property tax rebate program requested by this resolution is not unreasonable under these circumstances.

A few years ago, the member for Don Mills (Mr. Timbrell), then Minister of Agriculture and Food, proposed that the system be changed, that farm land and buildings be exempt from taxation and only the farm house and one acre of land be taxed. Many farmers supported this proposal, but many were opposed to it, such as the member for Hastings-Peterborough. It is my understanding that many Ontario Federation of Agriculture executives and members still favour this proposal. I for one feel there is some merit in it and it should be given consideration.

I would like to suggest to the government that if for any reason it is opposed to increasing the percentage of the farm tax rebate, it should at least give consideration to reviewing the alternative proposal to eliminate all tax on farm land and buildings.

Perhaps at this time, the proposal of the member for Hastings-Peterborough may be the best way to go. The government has made a commitment to preserve farm land in Ontario and, naturally, nearly everyone supports that concept. It seems logical to me that the best way to preserve farm land is to preserve the farm. If the farmer can stay on his land, he will do so, and by doing so, he will preserve the land as well.

An increase in the farm tax rebate is one way we can help farmers cope with their ever-escalating costs. The consumer would also benefit and therefore would be supportive of this proposal, because this would contribute to keeping the cost of food products at an acceptable level while at the same time assisting our enterprising but financially depressed farmers to remain in operation.

At this time, I would like to draw to the attention of the House once again a very serious problem we are having with the present farm tax rebate system because of the inability of the Minister of Municipal Affairs to administer this program.

In September of each year, the ministry mails out the application forms to a list of farm owners provided by the municipality and the assessment department. In September 1986, only half the forms were mailed out on time. The other half may or may not have been mailed out by this date. On November 24, the member for Durham-York (Mr. Stevenson) questioned the delay. I raised the same question on December 18, and on Tuesday, January 13, the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve) also brought this concern to the attention of the minister.

In response to the question from the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, the Minister of Municipal Affairs admitted that the delay had been caused by human error and he apologized. At the same time, he also stated that all application forms had been mailed and he had received the co-operation of the post office in Toronto to make sure all these applications were in the mail. Unfortunately, that is exactly what his staff has been saying for more than a month. The standard reply has been, "It was mailed today." That reply was given to my office on several occasions from November up to and including last Friday.

Since the minister has admitted that his ministry and the Ministry of Government Services erred in not providing half the farmers of the province with their farm property tax rebate forms in October when other farmers received them, it is incumbent on both ministers to explain to the members of this Legislature why it took more than three months to discover that there was an error and why staff kept advising the members and township clerks that the forms had been mailed out when they had not.

I feel the Minister of Agriculture and Food should share in this comedy of errors. Surely he has the responsibility to see that the farmers of this province receive all the financial assistance that is available to them through programs such as this one.

In my riding of Wellington-Dufferin-Peel, the clerks of West Garafraxa and East Garafraxa each received 10 to 15 calls last week from farmers asking about the farm tax rebate program forms.

It is not acceptable that the ministry can allow this type of development to occur, take so long to resolve it and constantly tell the members, staff members and clerks of this province that the forms have been mailed out when they have not been. To take three months to discover the error is not acceptable. I hope the minister will clear this matter up now once and for all.

Since the minister admits his ministry was at fault in causing this undue delay, thereby penalizing thousands of farmers by delaying the property tax rebate forms up to four months, would the minister give consideration to paying interest to these farmers for that period of time? I hope next year's program will be administered more efficiently and with the same degree of excellence with which the previous government handled its program.

In conclusion, I request all members of this Legislature to support this excellent resolution brought forward by my colleague and good friend the member for Hastings-Peterborough.

Mr. Charlton: I too rise to support the resolution by the member for Hastings-Peterborough, although during the course of my comments, I am going to make a number of criticisms. This is the second time since September we have debated a resolution in this House to provide assistance for farmers; that is indicative of the criticisms I will make in terms of the lack of solutions in the approach we are taking.

I am supporting the resolution for the same basic reason as my colleague the member for Essex North (Mr. Hayes) did; it is an opportunity for us to say clearly in this House that there is a problem in the agricultural community in Ontario, that there are serious problems for the independent family farmers in Ontario and that solutions have to be found if we want agriculture to survive in this province.

When he was speaking, the member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. G. I. Miller) pointed out some of the major flaws in the present farm tax rebate program. People in this province who in no way can be described as farmers are getting the rebate; that has to be ended. The member mentioned Stelco and Dofasco; we could also talk about Imperial Oil and Shell Oil, which rent out land on tank farms for farming and get the 60 per cent tax rebate on that land.

In his resolution, the member has not dealt with a number of other resolutions that have already been passed by this House. I believe it was in 1979 that this House overwhelmingly passed a resolution that dealt with paying for the costs of education out of the property tax base. This resolution again is indicative of the failures of this Legislature.

The previous Conservative government failed to provide property tax reform in Ontario; it failed because it tried to reform the assessment system in isolation from the question of municipal finance. If you are going to reform property taxes in the province, you have to reform the whole municipal finance structure, including the financial relationship between the province and the municipalities. You cannot do one without doing the whole package or it will not work, and it has not. We have failed.

The present government is unfortunately following down the same road. It is currently spending millions and millions of dollars shipping assessors into Toronto to do the study, which it is hoped will convince Toronto and Metro to do a section 63 reassessment. We are spending millions and millions of dollars paying travel costs for assessors from Hamilton, St. Catharines, Kingston, Oshawa, Whitby, London, Cambridge, and God knows where else, to come to Toronto and stay in hotels and get paid for their meals while they are here, to provide a minuscule change in the property tax system in Metro Toronto that will not give fairness and equity in that system.

1040

The assessors brought in for the study are only the tip of the iceberg. The Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) announced only last week that the ministry probably will not be able to have the reassessment in Metro, if Metro decides to go ahead, in place by 1988, as Metro was saying. It will probably take five years because, once the study is done and Metro decides it wants to proceed, the assessment division in the Ministry of Revenue is going to have to bring in hundreds of assessors from across the province for long periods of time while the total reassessment is done in Metro Toronto.

We will spend those millions upon millions of dollars for some small improvements to the fairness of people's property tax but still we will not, after all these expenditures, address the major problem. We have run away from the total question of municipal finance. I find the same problem with this resolution, although I am supporting it because it addresses the issue of the problem for farmers and because it will provide some additional assistance to farmers.

The member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. J. M. Johnson) mentioned in his comments that the former government had proposed at one point a property tax rebate system for farmers that would exempt all the farm land and all the farm buildings, so farmers would only pay property taxes on the house and a lot, roughly equivalent to a residential lot in their community of about an acre. In that case, and the member did not mention this, the government proceeded to spend tens of millions of dollars having assessors from across this province go out and make the calculations, the divisions and the measurements.

They did not do that to find out whether farmers were happy with the proposal. They did go out and consult farmers, but they spent all that money, those tens of millions of dollars, to find out how much it was going to cost the province for the transfer payments to the municipality. That is why they backed out, not because some farmers supported the proposal and some opposed it. Those of us who worked in the Ministry of Revenue got the memos, and we know what was said.

There are serious problems in the farm agricultural community in Ontario. The independent family farm is at risk. If we do not sit down and do what I have suggested we have to do with property tax reform, the family farm in Ontario will die and disappear, as is now being predicted in the act. Someone has to sit down and determine what the net bottom line is; someone has to determine what conditions have to exist for an independent family farm to be able to operate economically. I am not suggesting we have to set up a system that will protect the bad managers but we have to set the basic conditions under which a good farmer can operate economically and make a living.

In some areas, the problem for farmers is the cost of land and, therefore, the cost of their mortgage payments; in other areas, there are other problems. We have to sit down and devise a package of programs with criteria. The same programs will not necessarily apply to every farmer, but they will give us the bottom line and will be related one to the other, so we can see their collective impact. When those programs click in, because certain conditions exist in certain counties in this province, the net result of the package of programs will create the condition of economic stability for the family farm.

There is no question that this issue was here when the previous government was the government, and it is still here now. The new government has thrown some additional programs at farmers, but the Minister of Agriculture and Food cannot stand in his place in this House and tell us the collective net impact of the new programs he has put in place. He could not even begin to tell us, because that analysis has never been done. Until that analysis is done and until we put together a package of programs that will create the economic condition in this province in which farmers can economically operate and make a decent living, then we will have failed to address the problems of agriculture and the independent family farm in Ontario.

Every month and every year, we will continue to debate the problems in agriculture in Ontario, the number of farms that are going out of business and the number of farmers whose loans are being called in because they cannot make payments and so on. It will not end until we are prepared to put together a comprehensive agricultural program in Ontario.

Mr. McGuigan: I want to address the reasons behind the rebate. If members will consider for a minute a house and lot on a country road, it may be a quarter-acre lot with a husband, wife and family living there who probably commute and work in town. What expenses, tax-wise, does that family generate? The biggest one is education because about 60 per cent of their taxes go to pay for their children going to school. The remainder is for roads to provide access to town. There may be fire and police protection, matters of health and so on that are part of the county expenses. That is a house and a lot.

Across the road are a house and farm buildings on a 300-acre farm, which is the average farm in Ontario. What expenses does that farm generate? It is just about the same because the owners send their kids to school and they need fire protection. It might be a little more for fire protection because they have a few more buildings. It might be a penny or two more for the roads because they have a transport truck to sell their milk, grain, livestock or whatever. There might be a little bit more, but it is a very small amount more that is required for that. They are very similar in generating the need for money.

Then we look at the taxes that are generated. They are both assessed at about the same rate, but the farmer has 300 acres of very valuable land in terms of real estate and he pays assessment on that land. At the bottom line, we end up with the farmer probably paying several multiples of the tax that the other chap and his family pay.

That is the basis for the previous government bringing back a tax rebate, but as the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture and Food, the member for Haldimand-Norfolk, mentioned, I think farmers themselves want to be fair about it. They want a system whereby they pay their proper share. I am not prepared to argue whether that is 60, 70 or 72 per cent. I am quite willing to support the amendment of the member for Northumberland (Mr. Sheppard).

I remind him that the previous government did bring in a plan offering 90 per cent at one point. That was roundly rejected by farmers. Perhaps in today's climate they will not reject it, but the feeling at that time was, "If someone is paying 90 per cent of my taxes, they somehow own my land." There is a perception out there that if one pays one's taxes, one owns the land. That is based on the fact that if one does not pay one's taxes, in three years' time the township or the county can take over the land. The assumption is that as long as one pays one's taxes, one owns the land. If one does not pay one's taxes, one does not own it. I point that out to members. The previous government really ran into a hotbed of opposition on that matter. I would like to leave that.

1050

On the matter of helping farmers, I specifically mention the point that was brought up by the member for Essex North, which was to ask this government to bring in supply management systems for agricultural commodities. I am sure it is no news to most members that the government of Ontario and the Minister of Agriculture and Food are quite prepared to bring in supply management for any product the farmer wants brought into a supply management program. We now have five products that are under supply management.

The law is in place in the Farm Products Marketing Act of Ontario and the agricultural agencies act in the federal government. Those two acts combined provide the means for our farmers to carry petitions, to vote and to have a product brought into a supply management system. It is open and it is available, and everyone knows that. It has been tested with a number of other agricultural commodities, the most notable one being beef. The beef producers have argued this for many years. They are arguing it again now. There is a small group, the Beef Producers for Change. It has about 700 members. It is very active and it wants to see a supply management system brought in, but it is faced with about 25,000 other beef producers who are not so convinced.

I know the member for Essex North means well when he suggests that we have supply management, but I do not think the member would want this government or any other government to force a supply management system on farmers and say to them: "You shall have a supply management system. We are going to bring in a czar of beef cattle, and you are going to be told how many beef cattle you can raise on your farm. If you raise any more than that, we are going to take severe, drastic action."

I do not know whether that action would be some sort of financial penalty that you charge the farmer for every extra animal the cows drop, or whether you charge the dairy people when they put their male animals into the beef stream or when they put their cows into the beef stream after they have lived out their milk-producing lives. I believe this was last voted on in 1983 and it failed to carry.

If beef producers among themselves go out and sign up 15 per cent of the producers in Ontario and present that petition to the government, the government has no course other than to hold a vote. Fifteen per cent triggers a vote. The vote would be held and it would be presented to the 25,000 beef producers. It would probably have to be presented to the dairy producers as well, because I do not see how you can be fair about it if you do not give them a vote. I am not sure how that works out in the industry, but you would probably be faced with presenting the vote to the dairy producers as well, and it would probably fail.

I have attended many meetings of beef producers, and they want the opportunity to sell those cattle across the US border at times when the US market is hot. Of course, everyone here knows that when you bring in a supply management system, you automatically cut off your opportunity to export beef cattle to the US. You can go to meeting after meeting and people will stand up and say: "I want to run my own business. I want to determine the number of cattle I am going to grow and I want the opportunity, when it comes along, to sell them to the US market."

You have to remember that you have to sell this to the western beef producer too. Where is his nearest market? Because of the geography of this country, his nearest market is the United States. You have to sell it to producers in the Maritimes as well. Where is their nearest offshore market outside the province? It is the United States because of the geography of this country.

That opportunity exists for any farmer in Ontario and, as a matter of fact, for any farmer in Canada where the province has a farm products marketing act. It exists for any farmer to go for supply management. I am sure the Minister of Agriculture and Food would welcome situations where producers can prove in theory and later on in fact that supply management systems would be to their advantage. As the member for Kent-Elgin and an agricultural producer myself -- I come from an agricultural county -- I certainly support the opportunity for any farmer to apply to be in a supply management system.

Mr. Pollock: To wrap up, I appreciate the comments from all members of this House saying they are basically going to support the resolution.

To cover some of their comments, the member for Essex North mentioned that farm communities should be moving to supply management. I point out that a former minister of agriculture, William Stewart, did bring in supply management for the milk producers of this province. They are one of the biggest and largest lobbying groups in Ontario. This was brought about, as the member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan) mentioned, with a vote of a majority of the producers who wanted a supply management program. Former Progressive Conservative governments have worked to bring in supply management.

I understand and agree with my colleague the member for Kent-Elgin that the legislation to bring in supply management has been on the books in this province ever since 1937 with a majority vote of those producers.

Mr. McGuigan: Brought in by a Liberal government.

Mr. Pollock: That could be; I do not know. It was mentioned that Dofasco and Imperial Oil get this 60 per cent subsidy.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Stelco.

Mr. Pollock: Stelco and whatever. In one way, that may not be fair. On the other hand, they no doubt own land. That land is producing food, and all governments try to have a cheap food policy. That subsidy is helping to produce cheap food. It is not really helping the small family farm, but it is helping to supply food for a nation. However, is it any worse subsidising Imperial Oil and Dofasco than subsidizing somebody who is making $40,000, $50,000 or $60,000 a year and lives in subsidized housing? I just throw those comments out to him. We do not live in a perfect world. Somebody who is making $40,000 or $50,000 a year and living in subsidized housing is no better than Dofasco or Imperial Oil.

The member for Haldimand-Norfolk mentioned horse farms. There might be some horse farms that make a profit, but I am sure that if one investigates that, one will find that a lot of those horse farms are hobby farms. They are basically employing a lot of people. They are write-offs -- no question about that -- but they are employing a lot of people. If they are not making a dollar themselves, then a subsidy for them is about as fair as in some other situations.

I think we have been around the horn quite a few times on the comments made about a farmer paying taxes on just a house and lot. In my first comments, I mentioned that if he pays taxes on just his house and lot, then if he lives in a predominantly rural community the mill rate on that house and lot will have to double to make up the taxes to run that municipality.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): The member's time has expired. This ends the debate on ballot item 37.

1100

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION

Mr. Stevenson moved resolution 74:

That, in the opinion of this House, the Minister of Agriculture and Food should undertake a thorough study of the concept of flexible production targets or production goals established by government in conjunction with producer groups. The minister should pressure the federal government to extend this study to the rest of Canada and the study should include an investigation of economic incentives through the stabilization program or other government programs to guarantee a high percentage of producer involvement. The study would concentrate first on production goals for field crops.

The Acting-Speaker: The honourable member has up to 20 minutes for his presentation and may reserve any portion of that for the windup.

Mr. Stevenson: I appreciate the opportunity to bring this resolution to the House. This resolution is worded to pertain primarily to Ontario. Because this is the Ontario Legislature, it is our responsibility to deal with policies relating to Ontario. However, I want to make clear that the thrust of my presentation goes far beyond the boundaries of Ontario and, indeed, beyond the boundaries of Canada. My presentation as well will differ somewhat from the resolution because, as I develop my ideas, I take a slightly different thrust, although it is certainly right along with the wording of the resolution.

If we are to design new agricultural policies, we must look at where we are today, where we have come from and into the near and more distant future. Today, in the food-producing countries of the world, we have overproduction in almost all major food and feed commodities. Importing countries, which can afford to buy agricultural commodities, are finding a clear buyer's market. This substantial overproduction has gradually accumulated during the past 15 years and has resulted from many factors. Significant technology developments and progressive, efficient, well-trained farmers are two important reasons. Also, government programs around the world have contributed extensively to overproduction.

Almost without exception, government programs in all major food-producing countries are production-linked or production-driven. The more a farmer produces, the more support he or she will get when government programs are triggered. The best example of how production-linked government programs lead to excessive production is the situation in the European Community. In the early post-war years, the countries of western Europe were net importers of most food and feed commodities. In the early 1960s, the EC decided it would become self-sufficient in all commodities that it could produce well. We cannot argue with that sort of approach. It began subsidizing at very significant levels the production of these commodities.

By the early 1970s, the European producers had filled their domestic needs but continued to produce and began exporting a significant amount of their commodities. Today, their producers now export from 20 per cent to 30 per cent of their total production into a glutted world market. Not only do they have massive production subsidies, but they also have export subsidies. The European Community has sabotaged many of the markets other exporting nations originally had. Clearly, this is a production-based government program that is almost out of control. It is not a realistic option for the government of Canada or Ontario to pursue.

Canada, the United States and many other countries have had to deal not only with lost markets in Europe but also, more important in recent years, with the doubly subsidized exports coming into the world market, primarily from the European Community. The US finally had enough and in December 1985 the US Congress passed the Food Security Act, commonly know as the US farm bill in its present form. The Food Security Act delineated a new philosophy for the US and made three major thrusts to counteract the EC program.

One move, lowering the loan rate, effectively reduced the floor price for all world grains; thus grain producers around the world, who are not isolated from the real market as they are in Europe, have been dealt a major financial blow. The second is that the US now supports its own producers at a very high level regardless of what the actual market price is. The third is the new BICEP program to subsidize its own exports into the world market to compete with the EC. In fairness, to sign up with this program, farmers in the US did have to cut back their acreage by 15 per cent and in the coming year it could be as high as 35 per cent. At least they are trying to minimize their production.

Canadian governments have had to respond with some significant agricultural policy changes as well. The main component of that here in Ontario has been the $1-billion special Canadian grains program that was announced recently for Canadian grain growers. Although we welcome that program, again the basic message behind it is to produce: the more you grow, the more help you get.

I believe it is now time that Ontario and Canada must start to look at our support programs and make them market-linked or market-based programs. Ontario and Canada must show the world that we are prepared to do our small share to bring world food and feed production into line with realistically available markets.

We must start taking a few pages from the book of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. It is generally agreed that excessively high or excessively low oil prices are not good for the economies of most countries. Clearly, the same must be true for agricultural commodities.

There is a price range where exporting areas and producers selling commodities can get a fair price, and there is a price range where importing areas and consumers can buy at a fair price. The only way to get agricultural prices into an acceptable range for producing nations and producers is for the producing nations and producers to start taking responsibility for their production.

Canada clearly must take leadership to end the economic lunacy in world agricultural production. It is a battle that we cannot win. In my proposal, governments in Canada and producer groups would sit down annually to estimate the realistic market or production target, both domestic and export, that Canadian producers should expect to supply.

Each producer would be given an allotment based on historical production levels, and any government support -- I am talking about support such as stabilization or the new Canadian special grains program -- would be based only on the individual's allotment. If producers decided to produce in excess of that allotment, they would do it totally at their own risk, and there would clearly be no support for any production above that allotment.

1110

Producers would be allowed to alter the size of their operations. They would be allowed to get in and out of production. There would be no quotas as such and no quota values. This would be a very flexible system that would address both the immediate and long-term needs of our producers.

This concept is not totally new in Canada. To a significant extent, this production target and individual allotment system is currently in effect in the annual allotment of market share in industrial milk. In grains, which my resolution specifically mentions, much of the necessary structure is already in place. The western grain stabilization program and its delivery quota system, which is currently based on seeded acreage, could be easily altered to fit the proposed market-based production system.

In Ontario and eastern Canada, the grain production histories on individual farms are not as readily known or as sophisticatedly followed, but it does not seem to be a major challenge to put that kind of information in place. A few years ago, a study group working within the Ontario Pork Producers' Marketing Board and looking at policy and marketing options suggested that a system similar to the one I am proposing this morning would be one of the best alternatives for that industry to investigate seriously.

The market-based production system might require some land to be set aside. However, I believe that this requirement could be met with marginal agricultural lands. Property owners would be given incentives to plant hybrid poplar, pine or any other satisfactory species on such land. This would have obvious environmental and natural resource benefits.

This program would be funded with money already in stabilization programs as well as other ad hoc support programs, such as the recent $1-billion special Canadian grains program. Additional funding would be required from provincial governments. The total amount of money would have to be sufficient to keep our support at least in the shadow of that of the European Community and the United States or our farmers will be annihilated under the current world situation.

It is not a question of whether we can afford it. We must keep our agricultural industry viable. The key difference here, though, would be that our producers would be producing to meet the actual markets and not producing to fill every storage in sight.

Economically, my proposal is an idea whose time has come. Politically, its time is coming. The idea will be particularly difficult to sell in western Canada today. Western Canadian producers clearly remember the unsuccessful Lower Inventories For Tomorrow program in the early 1970s. More important, there is no accumulation of grains in storage in the west. The 1985 crop was largely sold out. It is unlikely that producers will be so successful in selling the current crop. Barring major droughts, grain accumulation should be substantial in the west by 1987 or 1988. If the expected occurs, western grain producers will be much more receptive to market-based production programs at that time.

Currently in Ontario, several individuals and groups have expressed interest in this general type of program. I strongly suggest that the governments of Ontario and Canada immediately start investigating market-based production programs. This concept of production, if properly developed, could be put into place quickly. This system might prevent producers from drastic reaction to a difficult economic period or situation.

To summarize, the obvious advantages of the system I have proposed today are as follows: the system is very flexible to annual changes and market size, both domestically and internationally, the system is market-driven and the marketplace still has the controlling force.

The flexible structure would address both immediate and long-term needs of farmers. Support programs of a stabilization type would immediately respond to moderate and disastrous price downswings. We would not have the whole litany of support and ad hoc programs we have today, so many programs that most of our agricultural people in our ag offices can hardly keep them straight and farmers are totally confused. Producers would still be allowed to make individual decisions outside the allotment but would do so totally at their own risk. There would be no long-term quotas or quota values. Each producer group would decide independently whether it wished to develop such a program.

Canadian producers cannot win in the current agricultural trade war between the European Community and the US. Any leadership shown by Canada will increase our chances of success in ending the trade wars in the upcoming talks on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

Programs such as the property tax rebate and the Ontario family farm interest rate reduction programs would continue to function as they do today; only the delivery, and probably the nature, of the stabilization programs and current special programs would change under this structure. The benefit would probably reduce the likelihood of countervail actions on our commodities being taken by the US.

I urge the members of this Legislature to join with me today to urge the Ontario and Canadian governments immediately to begin studies on the development and operation of market-based or market-driven production systems for Ontario and Canada.

I will reserve the rest of my time for summary at the end.

The Deputy Speaker: That will be three minutes and 50 seconds.

Mr. Swart: I am pleased to rise to speak on this resolution, generally in support of it, because it deals with not only an area of our economy but also an area of our way of life that is in extremely serious trouble, an area that has not recovered at all yet and in fact is probably in a worse economic condition today than it has been at any time since the Depression, while other areas are improving somewhat.

I must immediately draw the attention of this House to the fact that the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) is again not in his seat. It is inexcusable when we are dealing with a topic that is so important to an area of the economy, the agricultural community, which is so depressed, that the Minister of Agriculture and Food does not see fit to be in this Legislature.

Unlike other matters debated in this House, these debates are never surprises; we know a week or two weeks ahead that they are going to take place. It seems to me that for the Minister of Agriculture and Food not to be in this House on a day when agriculture is the subject of two resolutions is disgraceful, and I hope somebody will convey that to him.

The farmers in this province are suffering. They deserve the right to have the attention of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. When these issues are being debated in this House they deserve the right that he be here to take part, or if not only to listen.

1120

Mr. McGuigan: What did the member call farmers a few years ago?

Mr. Swart: I am not sure what the member is referring to, but I want to say that during my life I have never made any derogatory comments about the farmers in this province or any place else. I have no idea what the member is referring to.

I said I will support this resolution. I suspect it will get the general support of the House. It is a vague resolution. It comes to this House from a source which gives me some surprise for two reasons. First, the previous government was in power for 42 years and could have implemented those studies in this province and urged the federal government at that time to do the same thing, and it never did.

Second, it comes as a surprise because of the philosophy that party has always demonstrated. It wants to stay away from economic planning. Those are dirty words to the Conservatives. They want to stay away from matters of supply management unless it is almost forced on them. It is with some surprise that it comes from the previous Minister of Agriculture and Food.

I am also a bit surprised that, unless I missed something, the member did not give credit where credit was due about where this proposal originated. I have in front of me the October 1986 task force report commissioned by the Ontario Institute of Agrologists. Let me read the recommendations from that group under the section on meeting the objectives and production:

"1(a) The federal government define and publish a policy for the Canadian agricultural industry that sets targets for domestic requirements as well as export and import levels on a commodity basis at both the production and processing levels.

"1(b) The government of Canada identify production targets for regions of Canada on a regularly updated five and 10-year projection.

"1(c) Commodity groups and farm organizations give leadership in adopting production targets."

That is very similar to the resolution we have before us today. It is almost the same thing, and yet the member who introduced this resolution did not even bother giving credit to the Ontario Institute of Agrologists, which does a great deal of fine work in this province and which has made recommendations over the years.

Mr. McGuigan: It goes back further than that. It goes back to the NDP in BC. That is where the idea really came from.

Mr. Swart: It probably originated from the New Democratic Party. I would not take any objection to that.

As I say, OIA has made good recommendations with regard to agriculture over the years, perhaps almost more than any other group of that nature. It seems to me that credit should have been given to it when this resolution was introduced here in this House.

I want to point out, however, that it recognizes in this document that this is only a small part of the steps that need to be taken to correct the major problems that exist in agriculture in this province and in this nation. It also recommends and deals at length with such things as "methods to preserve the resource base, to attain self-sufficiency for Canada in products we produce efficiently, to improve Canada's balance of payments through exports and to enable capable farmers to continue in production through sufficient returns to labour, risk capital and management." These are alternatives that we also have to deal with in this province.

I am really concerned that there is little or no mention made of the lack of self-sufficiency that still exists in this province with regard to imports and exports of agricultural products. I quote from the 1985 Agricultural Statistics for Ontario, which indicate that we import into this province some $2,974,000,000 worth of agricultural products and export only $1.84 billion, a difference of $1.1 billion between the agricultural products we import and the products we export.

All of us who know anything about agriculture know there are some products grown in warm climes which we cannot produce here. However, what bothers me is such things as oilseeds, for instance. We imported something like $181 million worth of oilseeds and oilseed products into this province and we exported only $47 million worth of oilseeds.

Surely that is an area in which a caring government and a government that is prepared to intervene to help the farmers would move, so that we would have greater self-sufficiency and greater sales of oilseeds in this province. I concede that there has been a move in recent times to greater self-sufficiency in this field, but there is a long way to go yet and the government should be involving itself in that area.

There are also such things as nursery stock, poultry and eggs, where there is a tremendous deficiency between our exports and our imports, and this has not got any better in total over the past 10 years. It is a lot worse dollar-wise, but even percentage-wise there has been no improvement. A caring government would move to ensure that we have greater exports.

I know the battle that takes place in the international field in the matter of agricultural exports, but I suggest that with 500 million people in this world still hungry, if the Ontario government were really concerned about the exports of our farmers, it would be finding a way of getting those agricultural products to the needy nations of this world. I know it is difficult, but it can be done if we care enough not only for the farmers of this province but also for the hungry people throughout the world. There are ways of accomplishing it, and this government should take the leadership on that.

My colleague for Essex North (Mr. Hayes) dealt with the issue of greater financial assistance to farmers, as have the agrologists, in a resolution about a month ago showing that Ontario is doing much less. That is another area in which this government can improve its operations. It can at least get up to the level of the rest of the provinces in its level of financial assistance to farmers of this province.

This proposal goes part-way on the right route, and I will support it.

Mr. McGuigan: As I mentioned in one of my interjections, this program is not new. It is simply a re-jigging of the many programs that thinkers all over the world have tried to bring in to solve the problem. I first heard it advocated in a program in British Columbia a number of years ago.

This government and this member do not support the resolution. Here we are on the battlefield of free trade, already joined by the federal government, in answer to the entreaties of the President of the United States. We have danced the jig in Ottawa with them and now we are dancing at the end of the string because of those entreaties. Before the battle was joined, we gave up on drug prices, and we gave up voluntarily the battle on softwood lumber. We did not have the guts to stick with it and fight it through to the International Trade Court in Washington.

We find ourselves being drawn in on the auto pact, the jewel of Ontario's and Canada's manufacturing industry. It was passed in 1965 by a Liberal government. It has brought unprecedented advantages in employment in this country. Now we find it is on the table. These are things we were assured in the beginning were not on the table.

1130

If we adopt this resolution, we will be laying on the table the agricultural system of Canada. We will be voluntarily pulling out of this race before the battle is even joined. It is wrong to give up voluntarily. I know the member's motives are fine. He is trying to find a way out of the dilemma in which the world finds itself, brought about, as he says, by good motives that followed the Second World War when Europe decided it was going to feed itself, followed by not so good motives in the United States.

They brought in a system that is not market-driven, as the member has talked about; it is driven by the greed of legislators in the United States, many of whom are big farmers themselves. They set up a system whereby the US government was used to boost all kinds of money into the agricultural industry and into the pockets of only 18 per cent of US farmers.

Studies have been done in the US showing that of those people who require money to maintain their family farms, only 18 per cent get any money. The thing is tied to big acreages and big operations. In 1981, the amount of money the US government put into that program was only $4 billion. In 1986, the figure is estimated to be anywhere between $25 billion and $30 billion. No one really knows.

How did that system work? It said to the farmer, "If you reduce your acreage, we will give you certain incentive payments towards your crops." Last year it was 20 per cent on corn, as the member mentioned. What does the farmer do in that situation? He puts more energy and input into the remaining 80 per cent and comes up with even larger crops. There is enough corn and grain in storage right now in the US for 90 per cent of next year's requirements. They only need to grow 10 per cent of their last year's crop to fill not only their own demand but also export demand.

That system has not worked. It is not market-driven; it is driven by greed and ignorance. They think the farmer is some stupid lout. However, the farmers in the US, as everywhere, are smart. They have had a recent program to pay them to take a million dairy cows out of production because there are such mountains of dairy products in storage. What did the farmer do with the money? He shipped his old cows to market, pocketed the extra money that was given by the government and put that money into new, younger animals and new facilities. It did not make a dent in the oversupply of dairy products.

Mr. Stevenson: Those programs have absolutely nothing to do with what I have said here.

Mr. McGuigan: They have everything to do with the system of going in and bargaining about our situation in free trade. If we, as the smaller producer in this battle, voluntarily say to the United States that we are going to opt out of it, then we are going to drop our farm production by 50 per cent.

Mr. Stevenson: We are producing for every market we can realistically attain. We are not pulling out of any race. What you are saying is absolute nonsense.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member will have time to reply.

Mr. McGuigan: It is absolute truth, what I am saying, because if the member opposite is talking about raising prices, is that not what this is all about -- getting more money to the farmer through a market system? Therefore, you have to raise the prices. When you raise those prices, you take us out of the world market, because the world market is at a depressed price.

I have spent all my life in farm marketing; I know something about it. The fuzzy-headed thinking this resolution presents and the fuzzyheaded thinking behind it are not part of the real world. If you are going to raise prices in Canada, you have to cut off a full 50 per cent of our agricultural production, because that is the amount of our production that goes into the world market.

Mr. Stevenson: You have missed the whole concept of my presentation.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. McGuigan: The whole concept of the member's presentation will take us into very serious situations in this world battle. This government on this side of the House and this Premier (Mr. Peterson) are standing up for the people of Ontario, the farmers of Ontario and the workers of Ontario as best we can against the fuzzy-headed thinking that exists in Ottawa. The member's program fits right in with it. We have to look at the realities of that marketplace.

The Ontario government has entered with the federal government into a program to devise a market strategy to try to work out some of these problems. We have those same problems within Canada, because if you curtail grain production in Ontario and if the main grain you have to curtail to get that price up is corn, immediately you are flooded with western barley. You are flooded with it in a system where the government actually pays the railroads to bring it down here almost free. You are then immediately up against the task of trying to resolve the differences with those western people, as the member for Durham-York (Mr. Stevenson) said himself.

We have entered a program with the federal government to try to work out a strategy. Again, to focus on corn, if you are going to allot some sort of acreage that is going to be the better-priced acreage for the Ontario farmer, a certain percentage of his present growth of corn, you have to put that at a price way above $3 a bushel. You have to look at $4 a bushel, even $4.50 to $5 a bushel on the part that is market-oriented. Then the member says he is going to let the farmer grow the balance of his crop on the free market.

The minute you step in and put a high price on part of the allotment that the member speaks of, you immediately raise all sorts of problems with the United States. Just think what they would do to our hogs when they factored that in through the countervail process, because corn goes into hogs and hogs go to the US. Thirty per cent of our hog production goes to the US.

Mr. Sheppard: It is with pleasure that I rise today to say a few words on the resolution brought forth by the member for Durham-York.

The resolution proposes that the Minister of Agriculture and Food should undertake a complete study of the concept of flexible production goals established by government in conjunction with producer groups.

I want to take a moment to congratulate the member for Durham-York for proposing this resolution. I believe it is a good resolution. It makes common sense and it could prove to be the long-term solution to our agricultural problems.

Agriculture is one of the most highly subsidized industries in the country and perhaps in the world, yet the industry is facing a financial crisis that has caused more changes in the past three years than we have seen in a long while.

1140

Federal government subsidies are already very large. They totalled nearly $6 billion in 1986, approximately one third of the total farm revenues. Even this substantial aid, however, is only a temporary solution to a problem that will not resolve itself in time.

Today we are faced with an incredible amount of surplus food. There is a glut of grain on world markets, cheese and beef in storage around the world and enough surplus butter in Europe to supply Ontario for 15 years.

We can attribute these problems to several, factors: (1) technology; farmers are able to grow more with less manual effort thanks to machinery available today; (2) aggressive farmers; and (3) government policy. In the 1970s, when many countries such as the US and Europe decided to become self-sufficient, farmers were encouraged to grow as much as possible. Furthermore, farmers were paid extremely inflated prices for their production through subsidized programs at the taxpayers' expense.

Although the European Community and the US were the prime offenders, Canada now produces twice as much food as it can possibly use domestically. Also, countries such as China, India and Pakistan are now exporting food.

The public spending is so large -- about $25 billion in the US and about $45 billion in the European Community -- that it has knocked the bottom out of the world food market. As a result, we are faced with the inevitable. World markets have collapsed and we in Canada are facing a financial crisis because our farmers depend on market prices.

Yet, knowing these facts, farmers in the US, the European Community and even Canada to a lesser extent continue to produce far more food than the world can eat. This overproduction has distorted world markets. Basically, what it boils down to is that the country willing to subsidize prices to the lowest level becomes the winner, and the loser becomes the taxpayer, because in the European Community and the US the cost of the trade war has been shouldered by the general taxpayer. In Canada, however, the burden has been absorbed by the farmers. This has been reflected in bankruptcies, foreclosures and a steady decline in the price of farm land.

The federal government has tried to insulate Canadian farmers by paying them higher subsidies, such as the recent $1-billion, no-strings-attached cash payout, but there is no way for us to compete with $25-billion and $45-billion figures.

One of the obvious misfortunes of the agricultural policies in Europe and the US is that they do very little for future generations of farmers. We in Canada must guard against that.

One of the long-term solutions is for countries to stop their massive subsidization of the agricultural industry. In other words, let the marketplace settle itself. Canadian farmers could likely compete on the export market if all subsidies were discontinued, but they would be limited to certain crops under certain conditions. For example, the Canadian farm industry could probably compete in wheat, feed grains, pork, some beef and vegetables. On the other hand, we could not expect to sell milk, chickens and eggs on the export market.

This so-called solution, however, would cause much suffering to Canadian farmers. There would certainly be a readjustment in the farming sector; land prices would go down and some farmers would disappear, as we are already beginning to see.

We in Ontario and in Canada must provide leadership, domestically and worldwide, in order to regulate supply and demand for the benefit of all.

We must devise some sort of flexible supply management system, preferably without the severe controls of management boards, as this resolution proposes. Supply management could replace traditional market forces with controlled production in order to match supply with demand. A formula that would allow efficient farmers a reasonable return could be used to guide pricing at the production level. Retail prices could be based on the demand in the marketplace.

Consumers would gain from supply management because they would always be assured of a ready supply of fresh products. Producers would also benefit from a guaranteed market for their crops. This would allow farmers to better plan their cash flow and expenditures, which is a very important factor in the farming industry.

It is one thing to have supply management; the difficult part is making it work. Pricing decisions would be based on the cost of the most efficient producers, so farmers would constantly have to improve their operations to remain profitable. Supply management would require having the discipline to match supply with demand and to make it stick without exceptions.

In 1975, for example, Canadian industrial milk production was much greater than demand. Milk production had to be cut to avoid a costly surplus. It was a hard pill to swallow, but Canadian farmers reduced their milk quota by 18 per cent. As a result, we have a healthy dairy sector that balances production and domestic requirements.

Supply management is not an easy marketing system by any means. In Ontario, however, the system has worked for the milk industry despite the seasonal changes in consumption. Since 1965, dairy farmers have been able to invest and improve their efficiency, knowing they could rely on a stable market for their products.

I see this resolution as a viable, long-term solution to the crisis our agricultural sector is faced with at present. I urge every member to vote in favour of this resolution if he is genuinely concerned about our farmers.

Mr. Hayes: Unlike the member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan), who appears to be afraid of change, of taking chances and of taking the initiative to improve the agricultural industry, even if it is tough I have to support it and support this resolution. It is a step in the right direction in meeting the needs of farmers in Ontario and Canada.

This is a resolution that affects not only Ontario farmers but also Canadian farmers. We have to work and co-operate with the other provinces towards a goal of a national agricultural strategy for Canada. The current food policy practised by the policymakers of this country and this province, which results in cheap food at the farm gate, has generated the present instability in farm production and uncertainty among farmers as to their future.

Over the years, Canadian consumers have been provided with cheap food at the expense of the bankruptcy and disillusionment of thousands of farmers each year. Another reason for the low prices farmers are getting is oversupply. Part of our oversupply is caused by farmers producing more in response to lower prices. While this would seem to be the wrong response according to supply-demand economics, it is a natural response of a farmer whose total assets are in land and equipment that can be used only to produce food. The farmer has thought, "I can double my income by producing twice as much." Everybody thinks like this and prices are further depressed.

We must stress to the federal government that projected food production targets will only be attained if farmers are rewarded by farm prices through marketing mechanisms that will return full farm costs of production, including adequate returns on investment, management and labour. Failure to reach this objective has resulted in many family farm units being forced to supplement farm income with off-farm employment, or alternatively, getting out of farming by selling or going through bankruptcy.

This resolution states, "That, in the opinion of the House, the Minister of Agriculture and Food should undertake a thorough study of the concept of flexible production targets or production goals established by government in conjunction with producer groups." It is a resolution that suggests a form of orderly marketing, supply management or whatever title one wants to put on it. For this resolution to be effective, the marketing system must include supply management to prevent excessive inventory buildup while ensuring adequate supply to meet domestic needs as well as export opportunities.

Much of the present confusion on the subject of farm production and marketing in this country stems from the contradictions between federal policies and programs and those of the various provincial governments. That is why Ontario should take the initiative in working towards a national agricultural strategy for Canada by pressuring the federal government to work with Ontario and the other provinces to reach this goal.

I stand in favour of this resolution, and I hope it gets unanimous support.

1150

Mr. G. I. Miller: It is a pleasure for me to rise and to speak on the resolution. My colleague the member for Kent-Elgin has indicated we will not support the resolution.

It is not that this government is not progressive in its thinking. The member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) took some unfair shots at the Minister of Agriculture and Food this morning when he asked why he is not in the House. As the parliamentary assistant to the minister, I am here and listening closely to any new ideas and suggestions that will assist the agricultural industry. We feel strongly that we can and should improve the farmer's lot in the Ontario and in the Canadian economy.

The resolution is predominantly a federal responsibility. We are playing a role in assisting in the marketing of some of our products. We have taken that step in the past few months by setting up a committee to look into marketing, under the leadership of Art Loughton, a former director of the horticulture experiment station at Simcoe. The committee is working with industry and trying to find new markets and new products we can grow in Ontario.

On December 11, 1986, I brought in a resolution that "in the opinion of this House, the Ontario government should further encourage the use of Canadian-grown and Canadian-processed food products by all ministries, government agencies and provincially funded institutions."

We have a deficit of $2 billion in our agricultural industry in Ontario. As the member for Welland-Thorold pointed out this morning, there are a lot of fresh fruits we cannot grow here. We are not trying to get at that issue. We are trying to make sure that we produce the food we are producing and have some exports. Our corn production is only a fraction more than our needs. Our production of soybeans and oil-producing products is too small to meet our needs. I believe Ontario is served well by our marketing agencies such as our milk boards and our chicken boards, where there is controlled production.

When we look at the overall statistics, while we are having a lot of farm bankruptcies, we have fewer than in other provinces of Canada where the regulations are not as well organized. I agree we have to get the cost of production for the products we grow. There is no doubt about that. Particularly in the grain industry, the price received is below the cost of production. Corn that is selling for $80 a tonne is selling at Depression prices. Some areas of our agriculture are in a better and stronger position.

We will be listening. The group of farmers or agrologists who made the recommendations on which this resolution was based are certainly working in the best interests of agriculture in Canada. We will be researching and working along with that group and with all groups who represent the agricultural industry in Canada to strengthen the industry in Ontario. I am sure the ministry and the minister are listening and will be trying to improve the lot of farmers as we go down the road, so that agriculture can be strong.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Durham-York has reserved three and a half minutes.

Mr. Stevenson: I appreciate the support of those members next door here and I appreciate the comments they have made.

I specifically draw attention to the comments of the member for Welland-Thorold. It is true that I did not mention the Ontario Institute of Agrologists in my comments. Some of the ideas in here were contained in its report, but certainly people such as George McLaughlin, Gordon Bowman, Richard Pike, the Ontario Corn Producers' Association, many different individuals and groups over the past few years have suggested systems generally of the type suggested here this morning in this motion. Since the concept has been talked about for some time -- and as I said earlier, it is not totally new; in fact, there are precedents already in Canada where this system is working -- I did not attempt to go through the whole list of people and organizations that have had input into this general line of thought and this type of system.

He did mention that self-sufficiency had been omitted from my presentation. Although I suppose I did not actually say the words, I think it is clear that I was talking about governments and producer groups looking at all markets that are realistically available to us, and that includes domestic and export markets. If there is any portion of the domestic market that we are not realistically filling, I am sure producer groups would recognize that and urge that production be increased to meet that demand. Certainly the situation now with the growing market in the chicken industry and so on would be an example of how production is adjusted, but I think this system would be much quicker to react to alterations in the markets than we see sometimes in the complete supply management marketing board system.

The member for Kent-Elgin stated that we were pulling out of the race and voluntarily giving up. I am not sure how he got that idea from my presentation. It certainly is not at all in my thoughts, and I am sorry he got that idea from the wording of my presentation. I must go back and carefully reread it and see whether there are areas where it implies that. Certainly that was not my intent.

The prices of food and feed commodities will not increase until all producing nations agree, as the oil producers have at least temporarily agreed, to see the price of their commodity go up somewhat. Until that happens among all producing nations, Canada can basically do nothing.

FARM TAX REDUCTION PROGRAM

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Pollock has moved resolution 73.

Motion agreed to.

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Stevenson has moved resolution 74.

Motion agreed to.

The House recessed at 11:59 a. m.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1:30 p.m.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

DAY CARE

Mr. Eves: For some time now, there has been a demand for improved child care services in my riding. During my time as MPP for Parry Sound, progress has been made. We now have excellent day care facilities in west Parry Sound and Mattawa as a result of the co-operative and dedicated efforts of local officials, individuals and community groups.

We have been working towards the same goal in east Parry Sound. I am pleased to report our efforts are ready to bear fruit. A needs study has been completed, the district social services board has conducted a property acquisition review and we have demonstrated a clear and immediate need for action.

In the light of these facts, I urge the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) to act now to establish a child care centre in east Parry Sound. I further ask that the minister ensure this centre meets the needs of area residents by providing the flexibility to serve those on shift work as well as those with nine-to-five jobs. That kind of flexibility in day care arrangements is vital to many Ontario communities, and nowhere is it more in demand than in our riding.

I look forward to the minister taking immediate action to address the clear child care needs in Parry Sound riding.

SOLICITOR GENERAL'S REMARK

Mr. McClellan: I wish to read excerpts from a letter sent today from the member for York South (Mr. Rae) to the Premier (Mr. Peterson) about the Solicitor General (Mr. Keyes). The letter reads:

"Ken Keyes' responsibilities include management of the police and Ontario's correctional institutions. As such, he sets the standard for the conduct of thousands of officials who must be especially sensitive to a multiracial Ontario. What happened yesterday -- the slur as well as the difficulty in getting Mr. Keyes to realize the offensiveness of his unthinkable remark -- reveal judgement so questionable that his position in cabinet is no longer tenable, coming as this does only shortly after Mr. Keyes' previous failure in judgment ... .

"The hard reality is that the standard of conduct for ministers is different. They are representing government and the people of Ontario. He represents especially sensitive portfolios.

"The question for all of us is not whether or not we make mistakes -- we all do. The question is how we respond to them and whether we learn from them. No one has tenure in the cabinet and none of us has a monopoly on virtue. Surely it's fair to say that membership in a cabinet is something that is earned every day. Trust must be continually renewed.

"I know how difficult and unpleasant these choices are. I hope you will understand the spirit in which this is written, and that I take no partisan joy in any of this.

"Yours sincerely, Bob Rae, Leader, Ontario New Democrats."

RECOGNITION OF SENIOR CITIZEN

Mr. Offer: I am pleased to rise to inform the Legislature of the recipient of the city of Mississauga Senior Citizen of the Year Award. This award is jointly sponsored by the Mississauga parks and recreation department and the Port Credit Rotary Club. The recipient of this year's award is Elsie Edwards, who has been characterized by many as utterly reliable and always having the seniors' welfare at heart.

For more than a decade, Elsie Edwards has been, among other things, a key member of the Park Royal Seniors' Advisory Council, an active participant in the Lorne Park Seniors Club, a member of the Clarkson Friendship Centre and a regular patron of St. Bride's Church.

The seniors of this province are a vibrant, enthusiastic and energetic group of individuals, people who have, in no small part, shaped the communities in which we live today. They are responsible for having contributed so much to this province. The activities of someone such as Elsie Edwards, 75 years of age, are characteristic of so many seniors across this province.

I would like formally to acknowledge and congratulate Elsie Edwards on her award and for her contribution, not only to the city of Mississauga but also to Ontario.

SOLICITOR GENERAL'S REMARK

Ms. Fish: I rise today to associate myself and my colleagues with the remarks contained in the letter that was recently read to this chamber by the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan).

Questions of racial intolerance, racial slurs and the basic and fundamental issue of an absolute conviction to a multiracial society in Ontario and Canada are not questions of partisan politics; they are questions of the clear leadership and fundamental base upon which society is built. I am therefore pleased to indicate our support for the position taken by the leader of the third party.

SCHOOL BOARDS

Mr. Allen: I am delighted the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway) is in the chamber with us today. I want to refer to some problems in native representation on school boards. He will be quite aware that we have in recent months passed legislation that bears on the representation of other groups, namely, the francophone community, with respect to the governance of French schools.

He will also be more aware than I am that there is a study process under way at present which is re-examining the whole question of school board representation, its basis and equity across the province.

While the regulations at this time allow native representation on school boards, and while those regulations are in force and the representations are properly in place across the province for the most part, there are one or two places where there is a question of whether the proportion of students and the proportion in the local population do not warrant substantially more presence for native people on the boards which exercise control over the education of their children.

I think, for example, of the Manitoulin Board of Education where there are 328 of 1,014 students who are native Indian and 260 out of some 725 in the secondary school alone.

The population in the area is one-third native Indian, and the minister might want to consider, in the course of re-examining this whole question, the appropriateness of special consideration for the Manitoulin board.

DRIVER EXAMINATIONS

Mr. Sheppard: I was recently informed that, effective April 1, 1987, driver examination service to the village of Brighton and area will be discontinued. In turn, anyone wishing to be tested will have to travel to either Trenton in the Kingston district or to Cobourg, Port Hope and Campbellford in the Port Hope district.

Since this announcement was made, I have also learned from the driver examination office in Campbellford that at the end of March services to that town will be cut from one day per week to one day every two weeks. Complaints have already started to pour into my office and to the examination offices. This reduction in services from Campbellford and the elimination of services in Brighton will prove highly inconvenient to everyone, especially seniors, students, firemen, and school bus and truck drivers who have had to wait up to six weeks for an appointment to be tested.

I strongly urge the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Fulton) to reconsider the reduction of services to the Campbellford travel point office as well as the closure of the Brighton travel point office.

YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Warner: The Minister of Skills Development (Mr. Sorbara) yesterday had a very complacent response to the Dryden report. Quite astonishingly, he suggested that if I took a look at the Futures program, I would be impressed by the statistics.

He should recall instead that Mr. Dryden said "only a small percentage of unemployed youth can be accommodated in youth programs." And that in the Futures program, on average, the number of young people in the program at any one time is approximately 12,500. He ventures a personal speculation that, "many, probably most, jobs filled as a result of job creation programs would have been filled had the programs not existed."

Further, "When youth unemployment rates go down, but slowly, these programs get judged not for what they are, but what they are understood to be. And they fail, because they must. They do not and cannot deliver what is expected of them. And when they do fail, concrete and visible, they come to stand also for all that a government is not doing about youth unemployment."

Again, "...this means the current job creation programs directed to the private sector will have little impact on the current youth unemployment rate."

In other words, Mr. Dryden has clearly identified the problem and this minister remains complacent as he does little or nothing.

1340

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

CREDIT CARD

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I have a statement in response to the question from the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) yesterday concerning the selection of the American Express credit card. The member does not have a copy? It is coming right now.

Selecting a corporate card to pay for government employee travel expenses is being introduced to save an estimated $3 million a year; so the concept of using a credit card is extremely useful.

Before requesting proposals, a range of evaluation criteria was established, against which the submissions were measured. I am tabling these criteria today, together with the request for proposals.

The technical bids were submitted with the request by bidders that we observe confidentiality. This has been further reinforced this morning by a request from one of the losing bidders. Therefore, the information tabled listing the bids identifies only the winner specifically. The numbers are all there.

Of the bids submitted by the six Canadian companies, the proposal developed by American Express Canada Inc. was the low bid, tied by one other competitor. American Express was selected on the basis of better meeting the universality and other criteria. The other competitors ranged upwards to as much as $240,000 more per year.

American Express Canada Inc. is an Ontario corporation and the company has operated in Ontario since 1853. With 1,900 employees, virtually all Canadian, mostly resident in Markham in the constituency of York Centre, American Express has an enviable record of good corporate citizenship in Canada. The card does not indicate it is an American company; rather, it prefers to view itself as international with operations in more than 100 countries based on the same local organization as we enjoy here in Ontario.

RESPONSE

CREDIT CARD

Mr. Harris: Are there no more statements, to give me time to read this?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am sorry it was not in the member's hands earlier.

Mr. Harris: So am I, because obviously it has been available although, contrary to when I first raised it, the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) did not comment on his answer to the first question, which indicated these were internal documents. However, between the first and the second, somebody must have nudged him and realized this is public information and should be readily available.

I have not had time to analyse all of the data the Treasurer has tabled here today, although I find it passing strange on a number of things. There is no mention in this statement today that this was tendered. When the Ministry of Government Services was talking about centralizing its travel arrangements, as we have read and heard about today, there seemed to be some great secrecy surrounding what went on when the bids actually came in and what happened after that, but at least the acting Minister of Government Services (Mr. Conway) put out a tender call, advertised and invited everybody who might be able to provide travel services to tender.

I find it passing strange that the Treasurer, when he was looking at credit card services, did not tender. There was a very selective proposal call. In other words, some were invited to submit proposals. Many Canadian trust companies were not invited to submit proposals. Many other credit card companies were not invited to submit proposals and had absolutely no opportunity to enter into this contest with the very select ones that were invited to submit proposals. Some might say it was almost a very secretive way of inviting people to make money off the Ontario government.

I add that I have not had a lot of time to look through the request-for-proposal questionnaire that was given relatively secretly to selective card companies in Ontario. However, I can tell the Treasurer that in the past 24 hours I have had some comments from others involved in this industry throughout Ontario that indicate that, in their opinion, this corporate credit card request-for-proposal questionnaire was very slanted and biased in favour of American Express before the process even started. It is not my accusation; it is an accusation made by others in the credit card business, whose names I will be glad to furnish when the appropriate time comes

There is something rotten in the way this was done. The Treasurer talks about saving $3 million as a justification. There would be the $3-million justification no matter what credit card company was selected. I do not have a breakdown; I asked for that and I have not seen it submitted. However, I assume the $3-million saving is on the basis of the amount of interest that does not have to be given in cash advances to employees, the other method that was being used by the Ontario government.

It all sounds grandiose. I look forward to examining the information on the bids that was supplied to me. I would appreciate receiving from the Treasurer information on this $3-million saving and finding out whether all the alternatives were supplied or whether somebody intentionally went out and said, "We should give all this business to American Express," drafted a proposal that made it very attractive that this be the company and did not look at the other alternatives for saving money and not look closely at many Canadian credit card companies that were excluded from this process.

VISITOR

Mr. Hennessy: Point of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: Point of privilege?

Mr. Hennessy: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I take this opportunity of recognizing the presence of the mayor of the city of Thunder Bay, Jack Masters, in the gallery.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of privilege.

The Minister of Education on a point of --

Hon. Mr. Conway: May I say parenthetically, but it is a point of view that members on this side share with the member for Fort William (Mr. Hennessy).

MEMBER'S ANNIVERSARY

Hon. Mr. Conway: I request unanimous consent so that we might observe a certain anniversary this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to observe a certain anniversary?

Agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I appreciate the cooperation of the members.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Is this going to be lengthy?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I promise my colleague the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) that on my part it will not be a lengthy oration, but I do want to take this opportunity. I know all members of the House would want me to note that later this week, actually on Sunday, the province will celebrate the 25th anniversary of the election to this Legislature of our good friend and colleague the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk.

January 1962; I remember it well.

Mr. Barlow: You fell out of your cradle.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: His pants were wet.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I do, because it was in that winter that the province saw five by-elections take place in the early part of the Premiership of John P. Robarts. One of those by-elections was in my own county, where a cousin of mine representing the Liberal Party was elected to the House on that occasion. He was to lose 18 months later to another relative-in-law, so to speak, the current member for Renfrew South (Mr. Yakabuski).

1350

Our colleague has, over the past 25 years, brought a great deal of colour, character and commitment to this assembly. He represents, of course, a very important tradition in Ontario politics, a tradition that I know is well recognized by those who appreciate the history of this province.

In the old days, my colleague the then member for Brant used to say on many a platform, "It is time for a change." We are delighted on this side that some 19 months ago a change finally and happily occurred in this great province.

Mr. Rae: That is a matter of opinion.

Hon. Mr. Conway: We note the opinions of the leader of the third party. We appreciate the opinions of the leader of the third party.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: We appreciate the leader of the third party.

Hon. Mr. Conway: And as the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk says, we appreciate the leader of the third party.

However, it was in the fall of 1919, some 67 years ago, that the father of the current Treasurer entered this assembly as the member for North Brant and as Provincial Secretary in the United Farmers government at that time. During the 20th century, the Nixons have played a very important and constructive role in the public life of this province.

It is a tradition of father and son that is shared by others in this assembly. I know my friend the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) would want me to note that he carries on the very distinguished tradition begun by his father some 32 years ago. We had Harry and Bud Price, Conservatives from Toronto. We had Norm and Michael Davison from the Hamilton area representing the New Democratic Party, father and son. In fact, in my area we had the great Conservative family the Dunlops, father, son and grandson, who all served in this assembly.

It is interesting when one looks back to January 1962 to see what the current leader of the House, the then candidate for the Liberal Party, was about. He was described about that time by a certain Val Sears as a gangly, six-foot-three, 195-pounder. Some things have changed.

Mr. Wildman: Obviously, there have been some changes.

Hon. Mr. Conway: The photographs from the brochure of 1962 indicate that other things have changed a bit. The commitment and the language have in many ways not changed. I was struck, and I know you would appreciate this, Mr. Speaker, that in that first campaign the candidate for the Liberal Party in Brant was saying, "The farmer does not want to be pampered or mollycoddled, but he wants a right to expect a firm and consistent hand in the establishment and implementation of sensible farm policies."

The member has gone on over many years to give practical, positive and powerful effect to that commitment. I want to say, and the Premier (Mr. Peterson) would want me to say, that those of us who were recruited when our friend the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk was the leader of the party feel a particular pleasure on this occasion.

I will not remind my colleague the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk what it was he sent via emissary to Pembroke when he heard that some juvenile delinquent was actually seeking the Liberal nomination in 1975. More seriously, I can say, on behalf of all of us who were recruited in 1975, and certainly before, because I know you, Mr. Speaker, came to the standard and the banner when the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk was the leader of this party, we have always felt a special relationship to this most remarkable Canadian. Yes, he is irrepressible. There are times when he is positively impossible.

Mr. Laughren: Obnoxious, even.

Hon. Mr. Conway: No. I certainly would not say that.

I noticed in the morning press the observation that he was the general plough-horse of the current government, and that is true. One of those articles observed that the farmer from Brant county was "more sophisticated than you'd expect, and there's less ego." That is the truth. One of the things you discover about the farmer from Brant-Oxford-Norfolk when you are privileged to work with him is that he is a very interesting, multifaceted personality.

On behalf of all the Liberal caucus and on behalf of all Liberals in this province, whom he has led both as president and as leader of the party, I want to say that we greatly appreciate the dedication he has shown and the encouragement he has extended to all of us.

I want to say in conclusion, on behalf of the Premier and the government, that we look forward to many long years of continued service. General plough-horses cannot be easily or soon retired, and we expect that we celebrate this week the first 25 years. There is a tradition that suggests there will be many more, and we wish him well at Treasury, in the bakery, in the bookshop and in all those other wonderful places we know this remarkable individual inhabits.

Mr. Grossman: I want to add some remarks on behalf of our party on this great occasion and unlike the minister, who promised to be brief -- we appreciate that it was brief under his definition; we would have missed question period had it been his usual length -- I want briefly to add our thoughts on this day.

As the minister has pointed out, it is in my case with a special sense of collegiality that I have an opportunity to do this. My father and I have served in this House for 32 years now, but that seems to pale against the Nixon dynasty of 68 years. Some would have thought that 42 years was a long time. It could be a great campaign slogan in Brant: "Forty-two years is enough."

However, in the years that the current Treasurer has served here, he has shared many offices that I have had the opportunity to have: the Treasury, obviously, government House leader, opposition House leader, Leader of the Opposition. He has had the opportunity to lead his party as the third party in the House. That is something I do not aspire to do. I rather aspire to one of the offices that his own father held, which was Premier of Ontario, but I did have in mind more than 90 or so days when I get the chance.

I have many fond memories, and still collect them, of the time the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk has spent in the House, and not only the days when he enlivened this House with suggestions and comments, which some of us have remembered but which the Treasurer does not always remember; he sat on these benches making marvellous suggestions, mostly in a very good-natured way.

1400

Hard as it is to believe that attendance would lag in the House, particularly on things such as budget debates and even on windup speeches, somehow attendance sometimes would lag. I always remember, when we sat on the government side, we always found more of our members than usual here when we knew the wrapup speaker was the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk.

I should not say this when it will so bruise the ego of the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway), but when the wrapup speech was made by the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, our members tended to come in larger numbers, because his speeches were always informative and entertaining and mostly fair. During the long time the member not only served in this House but also came to the House, he showed all of us that there was a lot to be learned, at least in earlier days, from sitting in the House and listening to what was happening.

Among my fondest remembrances is the testimonial dinner given for my father when he retired in 1975. The then leader of the Liberal Party was asked to attend the dinner and speak; indeed the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk was there as a head-table guest. He spoke warmly and fairly about my father, something that touched everyone there. Unfortunately, the member was the best speaker of the night, something we have never forgotten either.

We have enjoyed working with and listening to the current Treasurer in all the capacities in which he has served. I particularly feel a warm spot for him because at the leaders' debate in 1975, when I was running and our polls showed I was in third place in my riding, if the Treasurer had not been kind enough to begin to refer to the then Premier as Bill instead of Mr. Davis, I would probably have lost the election. I thank him very much in a personal sense. By way of rewarding him, we regret here many times on this side of the House that he did not accept a Senate appointment when it may have been available. If there is anything we can do, he should let me know soon.

Interjections.

Mr. Grossman: I want to get it done.

In closing, on behalf of not only the boys at Earl's Shell Service in St. George but also the women there, and on behalf of men and women gathered everywhere across this province who have benefited from the member's time on both sides of the House, let me extend our heartiest congratulations. He has made a marvellous, sincere and important contribution.

I want to dissociate ourselves from Mr. Sheppard's article this morning where he says, "Mr. Peterson may be the new political star and Attorney General Ian Scott the darling of some of the media and intelligensia." We think if only the media and intelligensia got to know the Treasurer, he too could be their darling.

Mr. McClellan: It is my pleasant task to speak on behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party in paying tribute to the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk and on behalf of those members of the assembly who, unlike the previous two speakers and our honoured minister, did not inherit their seats.

The Treasurer has achieved the milestone of a quarter of a century in this assembly with all his marbles intact.

Interjections.

Mr. McClellan: I did not think that was a controversial statement. He has survived with all his marbles intact and with a marked improvement in his personality and temperament, unlike the experience most of us go through. We recognize that signal accomplishment. Something, perhaps having to do with the change that occurred in March 1985, has put a contented smile on the minister's face which has not vanished since that day.

The papers this morning were full of articles about our friend the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk. They remind us of a number of things, particularly his almost forensic skill in anticipating the wave of the future. For example, in 1976, he supported the illustrious Stuart Smith as leader of the Liberal Party, thereby putting into limbo for a full 10 years the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson), for which we thank him. As well, in 1984, he supported Jean Chrétien, another of his accurate predictions. I recall so clearly in January 1985, lowly worm backbencher that I was, drinking coffee with the member in the lobby and lamenting the fact he had been passed over for appointment to the Senate.

I recall previous farewell speeches, particularly in 1976, when he stood down as leader of the Liberal Party of Ontario. The tributes at that time reminded us of what those of us who have served with him during the past 10 years have come to appreciate: his extensive, encyclopaedic knowledge of Ontario and of all the small nooks and crannies of this province. I do not think there is another member in this assembly who knows more about more parts of this province than the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk. We have had the benefit of the tremendous breadth of his knowledge of the people of this province for a quarter of a century.

The Globe and Mail, also a paper of national record, does document -- and I think this has to be pointed out -- that despite his reputation as a frugal and parsimonious farm person, he does have a taste for canaries washed down with expensive Beaujolais and for fine, expensive red wine.

Today, I want to assure him of our affection and respect. All of us who have had the opportunity of working with the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk know him to be a forthright man whose word is his bond, a man of complete and utter integrity with whom it has been a real privilege and pleasure to work. I am sure my colleagues share those sentiments.

His father served for 43 years in the assembly, so the member is only halfway on in his sentence, unless of course he succumbs to the blandishments of the Senate. We will have to wait and see. In the meantime, we offer our congratulations and best wishes to him, his wife, Dorothy Nixon, and his family.

Mr. Speaker: The Treasurer may have a word in response.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I cannot recall a more uncomfortable quarter-hour in the 25 years I have experienced in this House. I hate this stuff.

I want to thank my good friends who have spoken for their kind remarks. I certainly appreciate that. While all of us enjoy the opportunity to serve our fellow Ontarians in this House and to take part in the democratic process, the real, memorable enjoyment is our interaction with good friends and colleagues in this House. That is the most enjoyable and, in the long term, productive and valuable part. There is no doubt about that in my mind.

1410

When I was first elected, I was ensconced in seat 119, now the seat of the member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Pollock). That was mine. I immediately made good contacts with my New Democratic Party friends and always enjoyed these relationships with all parties. It is often said elsewhere that while we can debate heatedly, and sometimes acrimoniously -- unfortunately, we sometimes have differences of opinion that are not real and often have differences that are real -- it rarely interferes with our personal friendships, and I think that is a credit to the human condition. We are very fortunate that this is true and will continue to be true. I have a feeling this has been maintained in this House perhaps more than in some other Houses. Comparisons are not valuable, but I think the tradition here for decades has been this close personal association, which is an extremely valuable adjunct to our democratic process.

When I first assumed my place in the House, the members had no offices at all and no telephones, except for a pay phone in the hall -- just out there by the government caucus office -- which took nickels in those days. There was no secretary, and when this was put to Mr. Frost, who was then Premier and who, when I came in, sat in the front bench at place 1, where the member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. Newman) now is, he always said, "Look, you are elected to a seat in the Legislature; that is it."

He was quite serious. We had ink in the inkwells that are now blocked off with nice little circles of walnut. We had pens with nibs that shoved in and we wrote with those. All our letters would be placed in the box which, for posterity, is still there. If one put a letter in there to be posted, it might not be picked up. We seemed to get along all right.

The Leader of the Opposition then, my good friend John Wintermeyer, had a very nice office in the members' reference library, or whatever we call that nice room in the west lobby. I do not want to spend a lot of time on that, other than for members to contemplate how our facilities and amenities and the availability of assistance have increased.

It is not only as Treasurer that I think of those extra dollars; I often think also as a member of the House whether the effectiveness of the work we do in the House has increased. That is not quite so clearly set out. It is still somewhat problematical. However, when I hear the questions of the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris), I realize he must have a vast array of researchers assisting him in these matters.

In those days, it is interesting to note, the members could not get home as readily since the House sat for lengthy evening sessions, often going through on a regular basis until after midnight or until 1 a.m. or 2 a.m. I am very glad we have abandoned evening sessions, although from time to time I say publicly they should be brought back on some occasions.

Most of the members stayed in the Royal York Hotel because it had a nice rate for us. We paid $5 a night, but if one wanted a cheap room, one went to the King Eddie, which was $3 a night. Since then, inflation has affected that; and I should add in parentheses that we paid for that out of our tax-free expense allowances. I put that out for members to think about.

It is funny. I can remember those things much more clearly than the dramatic issues that have swept back and forth like tidal waves in this chamber. All of them were important. But as is so often the case in politics, particularly when one gets oneself in some kind of trouble, which from time to time all of us do, and goes home and thinks, "O God, is this not terrible?" a month later one cannot remember what the big deal was all about. The nice part of this business is it is difficult to remember whom you are mad at and what the big issue was a month ago.

I have enjoyed it tremendously. People tell me that is obvious, but I can tell members also that I feel very satisfied with my position here, just as I felt my position in opposition was worth while. I can tell my friends that one gets used to it. It gets better; so they should not despair. They are going to like it better and better.

I go back to what I said to begin with. We have great responsibilities here and no one should question that what we do is worth while. Whether we are in opposition or government or whatever our individual responsibilities are, it is worth while and valuable. However, ahead of everything else, the human relationships are the things of personal value that we will remember. I thank my honourable friends for their kind remarks and I look forward to being associated with them for many years in the future.

Mr. Pope: Now.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Let's get back to it.

Mr. Speaker: In this harmonious spirit, I now inform the members that it is time for question period.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GASOLINE TAX

Mr. Grossman: I have a question for the darling of the media and the intelligentsia, the Treasurer of Ontario.

Mr. Ashe: The honeymoon is over.

Mr. Grossman: He said he found the previous 15 minutes uncomfortable, so I want to change his perspective a bit, if I can.

Since we first raised the question one day ago of the gasoline tax, of the increase the Treasurer put in his first budget, another half a million dollars has been taken away from the motorists of the province because of the tax increase he brought in in that first budget. The boys and girls at Earl's Shell Service in St. George would be interested to know this. Since the tax increase has resulted in about $160 million per year in excess revenue and since he boasted of $400 million in excess revenue in the first six months, is he now prepared to consider revoking his tax?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I did not boast of the excess revenue; I reported it. Most of the excess revenue is based on the personal income tax that is collected on our behalf by the government of Canada. It is their projections that we use for budget purposes. There is some indication that the excess revenue for the remainder of the year might be even greater than the increase previously reported. Of course, this will be brought to the member's attention formally when we are informed of it and when the regular quarterly report is made. I make no apology for that. I do not want to apologize for the buoyancy of the economy and the fact that our revenues reflect that.

In response to the honourable member's question, I was concerned that there was something in his comments, both in the House and outside, that indicated that somehow or other our tax system now permits increased revenues as the prices go up and does not allow revenues to reduce when prices go down. Of course, that is not correct. It is a flat 8.3 cents per litre. The member himself pointed out that when he was Treasurer, during the bad old days of ad valorem at the 20 per cent level, the revenues from gasoline tax actually doubled in a very short period of time. At 8.3 cents per litre on gasoline at Earl's and elsewhere, which is about 40 cents a gallon, the percentage is slightly up at something like 21 per cent, as the member indicated.

Mr. Grossman: Of course, the Treasurer is quite right. What happened with the previous ad valorem was that as the price of gasoline went up the ad valorem tax produced more revenues in lockstep. What happened was that when the price of gasoline dropped, this Treasurer stepped in to stop consumers from benefiting from a lower net tax. When it got to its high, he pegged it there. The prices dropped and, as a result, he is getting half a million dollars more per day from motorists than he would have had he not pegged the tax where he did.

He just indicated that he is going to have not only $400 million in extra revenue, but more likely, I guess, the $800 million which this party predicted the day he brought down his budget. His smile confirms that at the very least.

Mr. Stevenson: How about a billion?

Mr. Grossman: We will talk about that at a later time.

Mr. Speaker: And the question is?

Interjections.

1420

Mr. Grossman: Given that he has all this revenue, I say seriously to the Treasurer, would it not, in fairness, be right to say to the motorists of this province, ad valorem or no ad valorem, he will simply fix the tax at a lower rate and give them back the half million dollars per day which he is taking from them these days and which he has admitted are not needed by him?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Unfortunately, the same argument, if there is any validity in it, can be made for personal income tax, which has more buoyant revenue than was projected. The honourable member might be prepared to say our personal income tax rates should be reduced to maintain the revenues at where they were when the member was Treasurer. I suppose we could say the same for corporation taxes and other aspects of taxes that, on general economic buoyancy, have been rather fortuitous as the economy has expanded.

This does not mean our expenditures have been able to be maintained at the same levels. There are demands from opposition members and members of the government party for additional expenditures. The member is well aware that we have placed in motion improvements in transportation, although we do not earmark the gasoline funds but use them in many other aspects of our provincial responsibility which these additional revenues go to support.

I do not apologize for tax rates. All of us in this House know it is our responsibility to establish taxation at levels that support our programs. I am very glad we have been able to do that and at the same time reduce our cash requirements. That should be commended and not criticized.

Mr. Grossman: I want to read to the Treasurer this excerpt from recommendation 30 of the final report of the Advisory Committee on Resource Dependent Communities in Northern Ontario on the subject of gasoline prices in northern Ontario. He will recall very well that during the election campaign his leader promised to lower the price of gasoline in the north. Indeed, I suspect the minister promised to do the same when he was campaigning as leader of the Liberal Party.

I quote from the report of the committee his party established, "That the effective level of gasoline prices in the north be reduced by the equivalent of five cents per litre through a redistribution of the excise tax on gasoline."

The Treasurer is taking an extra half million dollars a day from the consumers of this province, including the motorists in northern Ontario. Surely he would at least acknowledge that with that half million dollars a day increase it is time now to implement the recommendations of his own task force and of his own leader and do something about the price of gasoline in the north and do it today with their own money.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Do it today? The member must be aware that the increases in gasoline revenues are based to some extent on increased utilization of gasoline as well. That is a fact. While I do not want to dodge in any way the prospects of improvements for the travellers in the north, the member must be aware that if the gasoline tax were reduced in the north, we would have to have very large additional legislative forces to control the price at the pump.

In Alberta, for example, where there is no gasoline tax at all, the price at the pump is very similar to what it is here and the revenues go elsewhere. If the member is asking us to pass legislation to put in some sort of price controls, which the member no doubt supports, associated with gasoline costs, I am not thinking seriously of that at this time.

CREDIT CARD

Mr. Harris: Concerning the matter of the credit card fiasco, when this selective basis was picked by him or his ministry instead of calling tenders, why did the Treasurer, if he were not going to call tenders, not at least invite proposals from the 11 companies operating in Ontario? There are five Visa operators, three MasterCard operators, one American Express, one Diners Club and one enRoute, so there are 11 legitimate different banks, trust companies or companies that offer the services he says his ministry was looking for. Can the Treasurer tell us the criteria he used selectively to leave five of those out and pick the six that he did.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The request went out to those companies that were capable of and interested in providing the sort of accounting process that would most fulfil the requirements for the control by Management Board of these cards. A certain risk would be involved, I suppose, in making them available, rather than cash advances, which is the way it was always done, to the senior members of the public service. One part of the area of consideration was the ability to provide a useful accounting process that would give us the kinds of control we felt we needed in this regard.

There was an extensive tendering process. I am not sure how many were on that -- six, seven or eight -- so that there was plenty of competition in this regard. The honourable member must be aware that we were endeavouring to get the best service we could for those civil servants who would be using the card, so that if they travelled in Ontario and elsewhere in the world on public business, and no other, they would have a card that would be accepted and the associated accounts would be rendered in a way that would fit into our accounting practices, so that the responsibilities would be clearly tied down. It was on this basis that the six tenders were requested, and a selection was made of the lowest.

Mr. Harris: The Treasurer will know that we are talking about an estimated 11,000 cards. We are talking about a lot of business to go into the marketplace for one company to the exclusion of all the others. We are not talking about a small account. We are talking about a very important account to the financial institutions that provide these services in this province.

Surely the Treasurer must be aware of some reason for which he excluded the only all-Canadian company that provides these services, a company that has great accounting systems, enRoute, incorporated here in Ontario.

He must have a reason for excluding them, because they wrote to him after many phone calls to ask why they were excluded from this process. They wrote to him on July 18 in a letter from G. F. Kossecki, director of sales, central region, asking, "Why can't we tender?"

On July 29 they wrote again, to Murray Meynard, the assistant director, with a carbon copy to the Treasurer. No answer.

They wrote again on August 7 to the Treasurer --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Harris: This is important to the question.

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate that, and the question has been asked.

Mr. Pope: The question has not been asked.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I remember the letters. When the member says they were not responded to, I am surprised because I remember signing letters in response to them indicating --

Mr. Harris: You did, about three months later.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I wanted to find out why they were as well. My own information is that they could not offer the wide variety of acceptance that was needed. On that basis, we made the selection otherwise, probably on the same basis as the Tory caucus decided to use American Express for its employees. It makes a lot of sense.

Mr. Harris: In the light of all these letters, in the light of the fact that it was the only Canadian company -- here is its book, enRoute, and the number of establishments it services -- and in the light of the fact that when some time ago the federal government tendered for the same kind of services -- which is probably why the Ontario government decided to follow suit -- it invited all 11; and who does the Treasurer think was the cheapest and the best of the 11 and provided the best accounting services for the federal government? EnRoute, the only Canadian company.

1430

He quoted his lowest tender as $55,000 up to $275,000, based on $5 a card and 11,000 cards. Some quoted $5, some quoted $6, one $15 and one $25, and that is how he got his figures. This seems to be the big justification.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Harris: When enRoute tendered the federal government, the charge on an account such as that -- I called them today and on any large account, they tell me, there is no charge; nothing. They provide them free. They would have been the cheapest because they would have been zero versus $55,000, $60,000 and $165,000. Why was enRoute excluded from this process?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The judgement was made that the utilization of the card would not be extensive enough for the requirements of the senior civil servants. That judgement was made.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: That is all right. That is fine. The government of Canada owns that company, and the judgement of our officials was that it should not be admitted to the tendering process.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

CHILDREN'S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Rae: I have a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services. Following the questions that were asked yesterday by my colleague the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) about the number of children in Port Arthur and in the northwest of this province who are being treated in psychiatric institutions, could the minister comment on the fact that we have now learned that, in 1984-85 statistics, 814 children up to the age of 19 were being treated in psychiatric institutions? An additional 2,651 were being treated in general hospitals across the province, only four of which have units that are particularly for children, and another 321 were in special hospitals, many of which do not have special treatment facilities for children.

Given the fact that this House made a very solemn decision 10 years ago with respect to the treatment of kids who have psychiatric problems and determined that in no circumstances should they be considered adults and treated in adult institutions, can the minister explain the complete deterioration in care and the fact that so many kids, thousands of children, are being treated in adult psychiatric facilities when these facilities are in no way appropriate for the type of care we would want to give our children in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The honourable member is correct that the treatment of children in an adult facility is not appropriate. The situation that was brought to my attention yesterday by the member for Port Arthur indicated that 12 children had been treated at the Lakehead Psychiatric Hospital. I have since done some checking because I admitted to the member yesterday that I did not have the facts; I had not checked with the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) on that situation.

My understanding now is that, about six months ago, there was an agreement between the two ministries that all children below the age of 16 who needed psychiatric treatment would be screened by the regional centre in Thunder Bay and in every case where another appropriate method of treatment was available that is what would be used.

At present, the only children who are in fact admitted to the Lakehead psychiatric facility are those who have very serious needs. While that is an adult facility, the children who are there are completely segregated from the adults. They receive one-to-one treatment by the nursing staff. At present, there is only one child in that facility.

Mr. Rae: The problem I am having is that the minister is giving me an answer that is confined to the situation at Lakehead. I am aware, as the member was aware when he asked the question, that there is only one child as of today. Our concern now has broadened to the fact that there are thousands of children across the province who are being placed in institutions that are not appropriate.

We have passed two laws in this Legislature in the past 10 years in an effort to focus on the special needs of children and to make sure that a situation which was commonplace 10 years ago would not continue. Now we find there are thousands of children in institutions that are not appropriate. What is the minister going to do to make sure that children are not being treated in adult psychiatric institutions in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: At present we have 89 children's mental health centres across the province that provide children's mental health services. In a number of other communities we have an adolescent unit at a local psychiatric hospital or at a local general hospital. In either case, we as a ministry believe that the needs of the children are being adequately met in those communities.

In two locations we have an inappropriate situation such as the one in Thunder Bay that was described yesterday. In both those locations we are currently working with local children's mental health units to have a residential facility in place. However, there continue to be situations where family physicians or parents choose to place children in a psychiatric hospital or in the psychiatric ward of a general hospital.

In addition, the definition of "children" for children's mental health centres is more commonly accepted as 16 rather than 18, so most of what I say applies to those under the age of 16.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The minister is answering yesterday's question today. Today's question is much more serious.

Yesterday, the member for Port Arthur pointed out that in 1984-85 at the Lakehead there were seven children in psychiatric institutions. My leader has told the minister today that in that same year in Ontario there were 814 children in psychiatric institutions, forgetting the Clarke Institute and all the general hospitals around Ontario.

The Minister of Health in his letter to the member for Port Arthur recognized that this is an ever-increasing problem. Will the minister table with us at the earliest opportunity last year's figures for the number of children who are in adult psychiatric hospitals, general hospitals and specialized hospitals such as the Clarke, how long their lengths of stay were and whether his ministry knew about them, which in the Thunder Bay case it did not know until the member for Port Arthur bought it to the attention of the ministry?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I ask the member to make one correction. I did not know about it, but my ministry did. That is where the information was brought to my attention.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: That is not true.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I have copies of correspondence where it was brought to our attention.

Mr. Wildman: By the member for Port Arthur.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I admitted I did not know about it. I am not saying my ministry did not know about it. There is a distinction there.

With respect to the range of services being offered, the member will be aware of the fact that in many children's mental health centres we have a nonresidential component for the services being offered. We also have a number of residential facilities. For example, in Thunder Bay, Kinark is one where there are 30 beds available for both native and non-native children whose psychiatric needs are not too serious.

There are other situations, however, where there is a joint effort between the Ministry of Health and us in recognizing that our competence to deal with very serious psychiatric needs is limited and has to take place in a psychiatric hospital.

1440

DAY CARE

Mr. Rae: I have a new question to the same minister. Can he tell us whether the reports that are gathered by inspectors whose task it is to inspect licensed child care facilities in Ontario are posted as a matter of course in those facilities and made available to parents whose children are in those facilities?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I will confirm it, but to the best of my knowledge, no.

Mr. Rae: Just so the minister will know, our research establishes that the reports are not made public as a matter of course and are not made available to parents as a matter of course. In fact, they are regarded by a great many branches of his ministry as information that is available only if a parent requests it. The report itself is not made available, but we have been told by one of the ministry officials that if a parent phones, the officials will tell the parent what types of questions he should be asking the operator.

Can the minister explain the complete discrepancy between the position of the Liberal government with regard to this problem and question as it relates to day care and the attitude which his party in opposition always took with respect to the openness of the nursing home inspection situation?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I am not sure whether I understand the relationship between day care and nursing homes. It is fairly obvious that my colleague the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) has indicated the direction in which he is moving with respect to the inspecting of nursing homes. The honourable member will be aware of the fact that we have an inspection branch. Our program supervisors inspect day care centres, and if there is a concern they will deal with that concern with the operator of the centre. Frankly, if the operator is not prepared to make the necessary changes, the centre can lose its licence.

It is quite true that if parents contact us, we will give them whatever information we have, but it is not made available as a matter of course.

Mr. Rae: I feel as if I am in some kind of time warp listening to this answer from the minister. When I first came to this House, there was a generation of questions already being asked about the secrecy of nursing home reports. We fought a battle with different Ministers of Health, Tories all, the member for Don Mills (Mr. Timbrell) and the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman), and finally we got a position where nursing home reports were made available. The information was made public and the reports were required to be posted so we could find out what type of licence was held, what complaints were issued and what infractions were found by the inspectors.

I have a very simple question to the minister. What type of transformation has taken place in his Liberal heart or in the members opposite so that what was appropriate to be asked with respect to nursing homes is not appropriate to be asked, to be decided or to be kept open with respect to day care centres?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I do not sense there is anything that is inappropriate. Frankly, I would be quite prepared to examine the suggestion that has just been made by the honourable leader of the third party, and it probably could be done. It is just not something I have particularly paid attention to at present.

The inspections are done. If there is a problem, the problem is corrected. In the process of correcting it, my staff works very closely with them. If there is a determination that it will not be corrected, then the licence is in jeopardy.

The information is available to parents if they wish it. I believe it is a matter of mechanism rather than availability.

LOCATION OF FEDERAL AGENCY

Mr. Sterling: I have a question for the Treasurer and Deputy Premier. In October 1986, our federal government announced in its throne speech that it was establishing a new Canadian space agency. Can the Deputy Premier tell us what representations he has made on behalf of the most logical location for the federal space agency in Ottawa or somewhere in the province? What representations has he made on behalf of the people of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I have made none.

Mr. Sterling: The Treasurer will be happy to know that none of his colleagues has made any representations either, according to the Deputy Prime Minister of our country and the Minister of State for Science and Technology. However, I want to indicate to the minister that Quebec has actively lobbied that this agency be placed in Montreal.

Mr. Speaker: And the supplementary?

Mr. Sterling: Is he going to protect Ontario's interests or is he going to be faced with another rearguard action plan, as he was in the case of the financial institutions that are now favoured for Montreal and Vancouver?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I can assure the honourable member that I will follow up on his suggestion. However, while it is extremely worth while that the government of Canada is going to make a substantial commitment to that, we want to be a part of it, of course.

If it is anything like the CF-18, we do not want to be in the same position as Manitoba. However, I do not want to downgrade the honourable member's suggestion and I will certainly follow up on it.

PLANT SHUTDOWNS

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Treasurer in the absence of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) and the Premier (Mr. Peterson). Would the Treasurer care to comment on the situation at Alcan in Kingston, where several hundred workers discovered this morning that there was to be no more employment for them? Several of these employees heard on the radio that they were going to be out of work. The work will cease in stages starting on January 31, and a certain section of the mill will be completely shut down by April 3, affecting 335 employees.

Can the Treasurer tell us how he explains the failure of the government to bring in legislation that at its very least would ensure that employees do not hear on the radio that they are going to be out of work in two weeks' time when they have been at the mill for several years and when the mill has been in place in Kingston for 46 years?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It concerns me and everybody in this House in a very serious way -- not nearly as much as the workers to whom the honourable member is referring, of course -- that proper notice procedures were not entered into. Even in the case of the Neilson's-Cadbury chocolate plant closing we feel the same difficulty was there, and the Minister of Labour and all of us in the cabinet and in the House are concerned about this.

It seems to me only reasonable that these people inform the officials of the ministry so that all the services of the ministry and other facilities at the community level are readily available for the workers who will require that sort of assistance.

I had a chance to look into the matter -- not that I am in any way expert -- and, of course, the figures that the member has put before the House are correct. The company is still continuing with its expansion both in capital and in other parts of its operation, and certainly the company is viable.

I cannot explain the absence of legislation, other than that those matters, along with others related to them, are under active consideration.

Mr. Rae: Perhaps the Treasurer, with his vast experience, to which all of us have shared in paying tribute this afternoon, can reflect on the following fact; and I know he will share that experience because of the length of time he spent in opposition. I have been promised legislation in this House on 11 separate occasions -- the Treasurer's comment today makes it 12 -- since July 1985, when the Liberal Party formed the government in this province. Where is it?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It is under active consideration.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr. Davis: We understand why the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway) is unable to respond to the educational needs as outlined today by the Ontario Public School Trustees' Association, because the primary problem in education is controlled by the budget of the Treasurer, and so my question is directed to the Treasurer.

Can the Treasurer explain why he allowed the provincial share of education funding to drop from 48.6 per cent to 44.9 per cent since he became Treasurer 17 months ago? By this action he has demonstrated the failure of his government's commitment to the election promise of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) to restore the provincial share of education to the 60 per cent level.

1450

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am sure the honourable member is aware that in two budgets, and more recently in announcements having to do with the transfer policy of the government, we have been commended not for generosity but for recognizing the importance of improving those transfers. The Minister of Education, who should be answering this question, is showing me recent publications, all of which are based on comments of spokespersons for school boards.

The Queen's Park letter from the Association of Large School Boards of Ontario says the current government is "responding to these needs following a decade of provincial underfunding of education's operating and capital needs." It was the member's friends who were part of the decade of underfunding.

The publication that most members have access to, Ontario Education, published by the Ontario Public School Trustees' Association, says the three big winners in these education sectors have mounted intensive lobbies -- Health, Colleges and Universities and school boards -- and they have been successful in improving these payments. I quote, "Also, the increase in capital funding is a significant departure from the past several yearss." I rest my case.

Mr. Davis: No matter what the Treasurer says, in the last 17 months there has been a four per cent drop in education funding in the province. This morning the Ontario Public School Trustees' Association, supported by other trustee associations and teachers across this province, outlined the critical problems that now exist in providing a first-class education system in Ontario.

I note for the Treasurer's information that had he maintained the 48.6 per cent funding the previous Conservative government provided -- in a time of economic restraint, I would point out -- he would find an additional $250 million today should be transferred to educational needs. In effect, the Treasurer has instead placed that burden on the property owners of this province by an increase in their property taxes.

Does the Treasurer not believe an adequate education is the right of every child in this province or does he believe, as his fiscal policy seems to indicate, the property owners of Ontario must continue to bear a disproportionate cost of education while he avoids his responsibility?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I can only point out to the honourable member that we have increased substantially our support for operating budgets well beyond the inflation rate in both the budgets with which I have been associated. The member must realize that school boards, college boards and university boards have accepted with enthusiasm the improvement in funding. Every member of this House stands for quality of education and improvement in that quality. We feel our budget and our financing are moving towards improving that.

PENSION FUNDS

Mr. McClellan: I have a question for the Minister of Financial Institutions, who yesterday indicated his willingness to accept opposition amendments to the pension benefits bill which would require mandatory inflation indexing of pension benefits.

Given that when the bill comes before the House we in the New Democratic Party will be moving that amendment, and given there is every reason to believe the leader of the official opposition has overcome the cold feet he developed in 1984 and will undoubtedly be supporting that amendment, in expectation of that, will the minister today agree to bring in a government amendment as part of its own legislative package so that ordinary working Ontarians can retire with financial dignity and protection against the ravages of inflation?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member will know we have made a statement that we are committed to the principle of mandatory inflation protection. However, having said that, there are many problems. The leader of the third party yesterday indicated potential problems where plans could be wound up and the very problem we are trying to resolve does not get resolved and worsens. We have set up our committee to look at the implications and to make sure we do it in such a way that we bring industry along with us to best serve the interests of both the members of the plan and the plan's sponsor.

Mr. McClellan: The most recent figures from the Pension Commission of Ontario establish that there is a corporate run on pension surpluses. Whereas the previous all-time high figure was $180 million in 1985-86, the most recent figures tabled in answer to my question just before Christmas indicate that between April 1986 and November 1986 a total of $250 million was withdrawn from surplus pension fund accounts. This is an increase of 300 per cent.

Since the minister's moratorium does nothing to prevent companies from shutting down pension plans and legally stealing the pension surplus, will he agree today to extend the moratorium on the withdrawal of surplus pension funds to include termination of plans, to protect workers from the ongoing legalized theft of their moneys in their pension funds?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Provision by contractual arrangement on the winding up of a plan stipulates where the surplus funds are to go. It would be totally irresponsible on the part of the government to renegotiate those contracts retroactively. Contrary to what he has said, we do not anticipate or even indicate there is any great run on pension plans at the moment. We have a moratorium in place for ongoing plans and under normal circumstances the plans that are being wound up are no greater or lesser than they have been in the past.

[Later]

Mr. McClellan: I actually have two points of order, the first of which is to correct my own record. I am told by my colleagues that when I asked the question about pension surplus funds, I said there was $180 million in surplus fund withdrawals in 1985-86 and $250 million in 1986. I should have said there was $180 million in withdrawal requests last year and $250 million in withdrawal requests this year.

ONTARIO INSTITUTE FOR STUDIES IN EDUCATION

Mr. McFadden: I have a question for the Minister of Colleges and Universities. What action has he taken to help bridge the impasse that has developed in the current negotiations between the University of Toronto and the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: We considered the possibility that there would be what my friend the member for Eglinton describes as an impasse many months ago when the matter was directed to their attention. The Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) sent both the University of Toronto and the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education a letter requesting that they enter into negotiations to achieve our policy of bringing those two institutions together under one roof.

The member for Eglinton is right. Those negotiations proceeded, and a short time ago both institutions sent in separate reports. We now are considering what is contained in each institution's analysis of the possibilities of that merger. One of our options to be considered, as suggested to them many months ago, is that the matter may well be referred to the Ontario Council on University Affairs. That is one option.

Mr. McFadden: Since the current quagmire in relation to the future of OISE and its programs was created by the provincial government as a result of its proposal to transfer OISE to the University of Toronto, will the minister guarantee this House and the students and staff of OISE that OISE will continue to operate fully after the expiry of the current affiliation agreement with the University of Toronto if no long-term arrangement has been made with the University of Toronto prior to the end of June 1987, when the current affiliation agreement expires?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I am not in the habit of rendering guarantees in this House, particularly when the subject matter has to do with two autonomous institutions that have a life of their own, separate and apart from this government.

Mr. Rae: When are you going to stand up to Nixon?

Mr. Martel: Particularly if Bob Nixon is opposed to it.

Mr. Warner: You only guarantee things for the Clerk.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: My friend the member for Eglinton will know, as will the members of the New Democratic Party who are shouting and screaming, that there is an affiliation agreement currently in existence between those two venerable institutions. It expires in June. My estimation is that, as they have done over so many years in the past, they will enter a new affiliation agreement as we look for more models that will effect the policy this government articulated many months ago.

1500

YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Warner: I have a question for the Minister of Skills Development. Since it is quite evident that the only major program this government has with respect to youth unemployment -- that is, Futures -- can accommodate less than 10 per cent of the unemployed youth in this province, I would like to know what he intends to do to provide answers for the other 90 per cent who are unemployed.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I am rather surprised at that question from the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere. In connection with the Futures program, not long ago he said that finally a government was bringing together the hotchpotch of programs that existed in what the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) calls the bad old Tory days, although the member also said that it was not a very great program because it was a Liberal program. Now he seems to be chastising the government for having a comprehensive program to deal with unemployed young people in this province.

The fact is that he erroneously suggests it deals with only 10 per cent of the unemployed young people in this province. That suggestion is not borne out by the statistics. Fifty thousand young people will be served by the Futures program this year. There are still too many unemployed young people, and we are still looking for ways in which to make the Futures program even more effective and far-reaching to deal with every one of those young people looking for a job in this province.

Mr. Warner: I guess it is not a surprise that this minister attacks the credibility of the Dryden report, as he is now doing in challenging the figures Mr. Dryden brought forward. I wonder whether he can move away from his complacency at all to recognize what Mr. Dryden recognizes, that programs such as Futures will fail because they do not and cannot deliver what is expected of them. To quote from the report, "And when they fail ... they come to stand also for all that a government is not doing about youth unemployment."

I want to know specifically what the minister and his government intend to do to answer the serious problem of youth unemployment in this province.

Mr. Wildman: You cannot stickhandle like Ken Dryden.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: No, he played goalie. As he did yesterday, my friend is once again quoting from the report Ken Dryden submitted to me and to the province a month ago. I ask him to reread the report, because he uses it as a basis to criticize a program which Mr. Dryden said was effective as a program. Admittedly, Ken Dryden has suggested within his report that this government, all other provincial governments and the federal government ought to reorient the way they do business and to start off with a statement that there will be no unemployed young people in their jurisdictions. We do not have the ways and means of achieving that objective yet, but let the member keep watching, because we are working on it.

FARM TAX REDUCTION PROGRAM

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I have a question of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. In question period on Monday, January 12, the minister admitted to this House that he and his staff had provided incorrect information to members of the assembly about the farm tax rebate program. In many cases, this information was passed on to the township clerks and constituents, resulting in considerable aggravation. Can the minister explain why his staff gave incorrect information to members of this Legislature and their staff, and why did it take over three months to correct the so-called human error?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: As I said in the Legislature previously, it was a human error. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the Ministry of Government Services work together to help the farmers of Ontario apply for tax rebates. As I admitted to the House, a human error was made. I was advised that all the applications had been mailed. Since then I have tried to apologize for this human error.

As of last Monday, the applications have been mailed. That has been guaranteed by the Toronto post office. I assure the member that every farmer will be able to apply for such a tax rebate.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: That is the very answer we have received for the past three months -- that every application has been mailed -- and indeed they were not mailed. Since the minister admitted on Monday and again today that it was a human error and that there was default by his ministry or the Ministry of Government Services and its acting minister, will he now provide compensation to those farmers who have been penalized because of the four-month delay in sending out the necessary forms? Are not all our farmers entitled to be treated equally?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I do not know of any farmer who was penalized for not applying in time. I have not received any request from any farmer. Our ministries have long tried to work together to provide this service to the farming community in Ontario, and we will continue to provide this service to every farmer. At present, I do not know of any farmer who has suffered in the past couple of months because these applications were not mailed on time.

UNIVERSITY FUNDING

Mr. Morin-Strom: I have a question for the Minister of Colleges and Universities about university funding for colleges in northern Ontario, in particular for Algoma University College in Sault Ste. Marie. Earlier this week, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) indicated that he felt the province was doing something for universities in the north in assisting Laurentian in the area of mining research and Lakehead in the area of forestry. However, overall university funding in northern Ontario is woefully out of proportion to the funding going to the major universities in southern Ontario, and nowhere worse than in Saint Ste. Marie where at most only 20 per cent of our university students are even able to get a university education in the local university.

Algoma University College has had a proposal in front of his ministry for nearly two years. Detailed plans have been laid out.

Mr. Speaker: And the question is?

Mr. Morin-Strom: The minister made a commitment last April to support that project, but no specific, tangible action has yet been taken by him. Can the minister tell us when he is going to act on the proposal that is in front of his ministry?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: It is my day today. I am glad to see that my friend the member for Sault Ste. Marie is asking about that institution.

Mr. Stevenson: Your day is coming.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I am glad to hear that from the member for Durham-York.

First of all, I want to get some facts straight. The reality is that the funding we are providing for northern institutions has been greatly augmented over the past 19 months, including announcements I made some two and a half months ago for an additional increment to the funding for northern institutions.

My friend is right. There are problems at Algoma University College. There has not been a report before the ministry for two years. For approximately two and a half months, I have had a report that begins to work on a new mission for Algoma University College. It was the very first institution I visited as Minister of Colleges and Universities, and it is one for which I have a particular soft spot in my heart. We are working on a new mission statement for that institution. I have told the people in Sault Ste. Marie that I am committed not only to the maintenance of that institution but also to its growing and thriving in that community.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I am not criticizing the minister for the inadequate historical funding for universities over the long term and the lack of development of a major university in Sault Ste. Marie; that certainly is not the responsibility of the current Liberal government. However, the college has been working on this mission statement for a time, and I understand the detailed package has been in front of the minister for several months. The college is anxious to hear an answer on this and is very hopeful that a major funding commitment will be made in the budget coming up for the next fiscal year. Will the minister be supporting the proposal of Algoma University College so that it can expand its services in the local area?

1510

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: In the fullness of time, we will make an announcement about our financial support for Algoma University College. However, I should tell my friend from Sault Ste. Marie that the problem is not one of lack of funding to support the students who are there. The problem we are having there is in getting a sufficiently large student base of students who want to attend there in order to create that critical mass of students necessary to operate vital programs. That is what the mission statement was all about; that is what we are analysing now, and it will not be too terribly long before the member, the people of Sault Ste. Marie and the people of Ontario have an answer to it.

AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION PROGRAMS

Mr. Stevenson: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Does the minister support the concept of market-linked or allotment-linked programs for the stabilization of prices for agricultural commodities?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I know the honourable member has made that proposal, and of course I always look at proposals that are made by my opposition critics. I am not going to say at this time whether I support it until I know exactly what is involved in that type of marketing, but I can tell the member we are looking at it.

Mr. Stevenson: Several proposals of this general type have been brought forward in the past two or three years by individuals and groups in the agriculture industry. Which one of those proposals seems most attractive to the minister at this time?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I am not sure I am the one who should be making that kind of decision. This is a decision that has to be made by the producers themselves, and I would rather not influence their thinking. The member knows that at the present time there are two schools of thought on the marketing of beef cattle.

I do not think I am the one who should be influencing their decisions about what they want. We do have the legislation in place, and if they want to follow one particular marketing route then all they have to do is come to the Farm Products Marketing Board, express their wishes and have some names on a petition and the gears will be put in motion. But that is the producers' decision; it is not a decision for me to make.

SALE OF UNREGISTERED HOMES

Mr. Philip: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Is the minister aware that the Greenwin construction company is selling condominiums on the corner of Don Mills Road and Duncan Mills Road in North York even though the city of North York and the provincial cabinet have said the project could not go ahead and have refused the rezoning? If so, why does the minister not stop this kind of ripoff?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I am aware of that particular situation, and the officials in my ministry are looking into it.

Mr. Philip: Is the minister not aware that the developer has an economic feasibility clause; in other words, a clause by which he can get out of the contract later down the line, having used these people's money? Is he not aware that the sale of the units is simply a way of pressuring North York into changing the rezoning without any protection to the purchaser? Why does the minister not stop this practice, which was started by the previous Conservative government when it allowed the sale of unregistered homes such as these? Why does the minister not ban that kind of practice and protect the consumers?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: That is an area we are looking into, and I expect to be able to do something about that.

LOCATION OF FEDERAL AGENCIES

Mr. Sterling: I have another question for the Deputy Premier. In November 1986 the Picard commission, a federal commission that was reporting on the economic future of the city of Montreal, recommended to the federal government that the Export Development Corp., Telesat Canada and the Canadian International Development Agency be transferred from the Ottawa area to the city of Montreal at a cost of 2,500 jobs in the Ottawa-Carleton area. What representations has the Deputy Premier made to the federal government to preserve these institutions in the Ottawa-Carleton area?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The idea of transferring those from Ottawa to Montreal is, in my view, nonsense. If that were to be seriously considered by the government of Canada, I think it would deserve to lose the support across the country that it started with in the election three years ago.

It is almost as much nonsense as the prospect of the government of Canada establishing Montreal as an international banking centre, in spite of the fact that Toronto has pre-eminence in that regard. Politics is one thing, but if that policy disrupts any kind of fair and equitable decision by the government of Canada, it is a serious matter.

I do not believe the government of Canada is seriously considering transferring that organization. I trust it will not.

Mr. Sterling: The Deputy Premier represents the government. What has he done? He is telling me he has done zip-all. Why does he not do something for the people of Ontario and the people of Ottawa-Carleton? Do something, make a call.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Time for oral question has expired.

Mr. McClellan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to hear a point of order if the members will allow it.

ATTENDANCE OF MINISTER

Mr. McClellan: My second point may be a point of privilege; it has to do with the attendance of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley). There is a major environment issue facing the province that has to do with Kimberly-Clark. The Minister of the Environment arrived after question period yesterday and indicated he was unavoidably detained. He indicated he would be here today, although late, for question period, but he has not shown up. It is clear that the minister is hiding from the Legislature and trying to avoid giving answers to this current and serious problem.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I believe the member said he had a point of privilege. I cannot see where that is a point of privilege. It is a point of view, and he did the same as on the first point, got it on the record. That is fine.

PETITIONS

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Eves: I have a petition addressed to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"That the Ministry of Health recognize and include the district of Parry Sound as northern Ontario for all health services but especially for the purpose of northern health travel grants."

CONTROL OF SMOKING

Mr. Sterling: I have a petition addressed to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"We support Bill 71, the Non-Smokers' Protection Act, and ask all members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to vote for it in committee and on third reading in the Legislature.

"I urge" -- and that includes 7,716 people in this group -- "the government of Ontario to support this bill by allowing it to pass through all stages of parliament."

1520

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. McCague from the standing committee on general government reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following supplementary amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1987:

Provincial transportation program, $1,300,000; municipal roads program, $2,000,000; ministry administration program, $1,100,000; and provincial transit program, $12,800,000.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Mr. D. R. Cooke from the standing committee on finance and economic affairs presented the following report:

Your committee wishes to indicate its strong support for the inclusion of Toronto in any federal legislation presented to make Canadian locations as tax-exempt, or partially exempt, international banking centres. The proposal of the federal government to exclude Toronto in federal legislation to create international banking centres would be ill advised and potentially highly damaging to the economy of Toronto and the province. The committee should forthwith commence hearings to investigate the potentially serious consequences of the federal government's proposal.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: Briefly, this report results from a resolution brought before our committee by the member for Durham West (Mr. Ashe) and another resolution, almost identical, from the member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty), which were combined this morning and passed unanimously by the committee to show the concerns the committee has for the seeming federal policy of suggesting that Vancouver and Montreal, but not Toronto, become tax-exempt international banking centres.

The wording of the report does not in fact suggest that our committee has an opinion one way or the other on whether there should be any international banking centres in Canada. We are of the view that if there should be international banking centres, then Toronto definitely should be one of those.

It is the intention of our committee to call witnesses to attempt to determine the background behind the decision on the part of the federal government. They will include the federal Minister of Finance and the federal Minister of International Trade. It is the intention of our committee to try to determine exactly what the impact would be on Ontario. I hope these hearings will throw some light on the subject. Until we have further information, I would move that the debate on the report be adjourned.

Mr. Speaker: There is no necessity for a motion.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

RETAIL BUSINESS HOLIDAYS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Ashe moved first reading of Bill 188, An Act to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Ashe: Briefly, this bill will allow all retail establishments that sell only books, newspapers or periodicals, and all art galleries to be open on Sundays and other public holidays.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF HOUSING (CONTINUED)

On vote 1901, ministry administration program:

Mr. Chairman: When we broke the last time we were dealing with these estimates, on January 12, we were at the end of vote 1901. I do not think there was any more discussion desired on this vote. By the lack of response, I appear to be correct. Therefore, in keeping with the agreement of the committee on that day that we carry each vote at the end thereof, I will ask whether vote 1901 in its entirety carries.

Vote 1901 agreed to.

On vote 1902, Ontario building program:

Hon. Mr. Curling: It would be appropriate at this time to respond to some questions raised in vote 1901 so that, for the record --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Curling: Some questions were raised under vote 1901. Would the House like me to respond to them or --

Mr. Chairman: The time to respond to them was before we took the vote.

Hon. Mr. Curling: Then that is fine with me.

Mr. Gordon: It is my understanding that we did not vote on vote 1901 the other day.

Mr. Chairman: That is correct; we just did now. We just finished.

Hon. Mr. Curling: Thank you for your co-operation.

Previously, in my opening statement, I referred to our new approach to housing in this province under our assured housing strategy for Ontario. A major element of that initiative is reflected in this vote, the building industry strategy.

Mr. Gordon: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: Do we have a copy of the minister's remarks?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I am sorry. I think it is coming now. There is a copy.

Mr. Chairman: Is the minister reading a statement?

Hon. Mr. Curling: Yes.

I will just wait until the copies are distributed. If the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon) has his copy now, I will continue.

As I said earlier, I referred to our new approach to housing in this province under our assured housing strategy for Ontario. A major element of that initiative is reflected in this vote, the building industry strategy. As members may know, this is a comprehensive program to revitalize the building industry.

This program forms an integral part of the assured housing for Ontario policy. Like all aspects of that policy, this plan was developed only after extensive consultations with industry, labour and government representatives. It is designed to increase employment opportunities, expand production for domestic and foreign markets and foster career development within the ministry.

A Building Industry Strategy Board has been established with representatives from industry, labour and government to direct implementation of the plan. Harold Shipp of Shipp Corp. in Mississauga has been appointed as chairman for 1986-87. As members all know, Mr. Shipp is a well-known home builder, contractor and developer. His involvement is very important in our inaugural year of the building industry strategy.

The plan has five goals; and those goals are to streamline the building regulations, to expand production in domestic and foreign markets, to improve productivity, to increase co-operation and awareness within the industry and to promote the establishment of a world-class building centre.

1530

Before outlining specific initiatives that are on the way to achieve these objectives, let me review the current building environment in Ontario.

Building construction is one of Ontario's largest and most important industries. In 1985, nearly $15.2 billion was spent in the industry. Building construction is Ontario's largest employer, with a labour force twice that of the agricultural sector and three times that of the automotive industry. The industry is diverse and very complex. Nearly 400,000 men and women work in more than 80,000 firms, most of them small to medium-sized. That means one out of every eight persons in the province makes his or her living in the building industry. Building construction also influences other sectors of the economy. Last year nearly 125,000 jobs were created in spinoff employment.

The building industry, although a powerful economic force in the economy, has in the past been taken for granted. The tendency has been to view the industry in bits and pieces rather than as a single entity. We think of traditional members of the building industry such as architects, engineers, builders and developers, but the industry also includes a large supporting network of manufacturers, distributors, financial institutions, educators, industry associations, exporters, importers, regulatory agencies, buyers of construction and, finally, government.

A building industry strategy is essential to unite all these industrial sectors in planning the future. The first goal of the strategy is to rationalize building regulations and improve their administration while ensuring that the interests and safety of the public are maintained. When we talk to industry representatives, regulatory reform emerges as a top priority. There are literally hundreds of provincial acts and regulations that in one way or another affect the building process.

A steering committee on regulatory reform has been working to streamline these regulations. The committee, which includes building officials and members of private industry, has undertaken a number of initiatives in this direction. A survey of regulatory obstacles has been completed and an analysis of municipal administrative procedures has been conducted. A catalogue of all the provincial legislation affecting building has been compiled, reviewed and overlaps identified. A senior level interministerial committee has been established to eliminate overlaps and duplication in building legislation across the government.

In keeping with this government's commitment to an open process, the steering committee on regulatory reform also launched a major campaign to solicit public reaction and to propose amendments to the Ontario Building Code. This campaign included public hearings throughout the province. All the recommendations received from various industry representatives were carefully considered for incorporation into the new Ontario code, which became effective on October 20, 1986.

The ministry, in conjunction with the National Research Council, is also developing a technique to determine how much is enough when it comes to regulation. A unique economic risk assessment model will measure technical merit, cost benefits and levels of risk relative to all future proposed building regulations. Eventually, we will be able to assess all the building regulations in Canada and even in the world through this computer model and get a balanced evaluation of which regulations are valid and which should be modified or discarded.

The ministry is continuing actively to encourage federal-provincial liaison in regulating the building industry through a variety of initiatives, which include:

A representation to the Nielsen task force focusing on the need for a similar streamlining of federal legislation;

A meeting of deputy ministers in July, followed by a meeting of ministers responsible for the building industry in November, to encourage recognition of the economic and social importance of the building industry across Canada;

Several joint research studies that will pool the efforts of the National Research Council and the provinces;

A joint federal-provincial effort to computerize the national and provincial building codes -- ultimately, the industry will be able to use the computerized codes to improve the efficiency of this building, design and inspection process to facilitate the interpretation of code requirements in general; and

A proposal to the National Research Council to study the role of standards instead of prescriptive regulations in the building industry.

Future tasks in the area of regulatory reform include assessing alternative regulatory systems, ranging from private sector inspections to elimination of duplicate plans; examination and inspections for buildings designed by certified architects and/or engineers; examining performance standards, revealing alternative code formats and reviewing the roles of the Building Code Commission and the Building Materials Evaluation Commission to ensure that they meet the industry's needs.

I said earlier that the first goal of the building-industry strategy is to rationalize regulations and improve their administration. I have outlined several initiatives that are designed to reduce the number of building regulations. Let me now outline for members the steps that have been taken to help improve administration at the municipal level.

Under our building action program, financial assistance is available to help municipalities promote more efficient administrative practices in their building departments and to enhance the skills of their building department staff. The building administration fund encourages municipalities to make changes that will improve the processing of building permits and make it possible to share services with neighbouring municipalities. The building officials training grant helps building officials acquire new skills and upgrade their expertise so that they do the best possible job in the face of rapid changes in their field.

Traditionally, there has been a wide disparity in the efficiency of the administration and enforcement of building regulations. By way of background information, in 1982, building officials asked the province to establish a uniform professional training program. Subsequently, an assessment of training needs was conducted and the Municipal Inspectors Training and Education Council -- MITEC, as it is called -- composed of municipal building officials and staff of the ministry, was established.

With its assistance, courses were designed on the role and responsibilities of municipal inspectors in administering and enforcing the code. The objectives of the education program are to provide consistent, high quality training; to promote uniform interpretation of the regulations; to promote development of competent and well-trained inspectors; to increase efficiencies in the building process; and to communicate the need for competent administration and enforcement of the provincial building regulations.

The courses are taught by seasoned building officials and are professionally designed to incorporate state-of-the-art techniques for adult training. Courses are delivered on location throughout the province to maximize accessibility and reduce costs for municipalities.

The education program consists of several levels of instruction. At the introductory level, the Inspector and the House course deals with the role and responsibilities of municipal inspectors. A model single-family dwelling forms the basis of instruction on foundations, external and internal building envelopes, heating and ventilation and plumbing.

1540

At the second level of instruction, a 10-day course on technical requirements provides knowledge and understanding of the inspector's responsibility for inspecting small buildings used for residential, business and personal service, and medium- and low-hazard occupancies. Examples of such occupancies include town houses, semis, duplexes, stores and small plazas.

At the intermediate level of instruction, course work addresses inspection of large buildings and special occupancies. Such occupancies include small apartment buildings, cinemas, art galleries, arenas, small industrial centres and shopping malls.

Advanced-level training focuses on larger and more complex buildings.

In addition, we have developed a six-day course devoted to legal processes and responsibilities. This course deals with the administration and enforcement responsibilities of building officials and covers the general legal process and court system, major legislation, order-writing and issues such as liability, confidentiality of records and powers of entry.

Other courses have been designed to provide specialized instruction on various parts of the code, unique structures or unusual applications. Additional courses will be developed as new needs are identified and could include instruction pertaining to farm buildings, institutions, structures constructed or adapted to high-energy conservation, television studios, helicopter pads and electrical substations.

I am very happy to tell the members that municipal response to the training program has been overwhelmingly positive. The program commenced in January 1985. By the end of this winter, we will have delivered 40 sessions to more than 1,000 participants. We anticipate completing development of the core training program for building officials by the end of 1987. We are confident from the response to date that building officials will take the complete series.

While the province is not contemplating mandatory certification or licensing for inspectors at this point, municipal associations will be adopting ministry courses for their certification programs.

We will continue to explore opportunities to provide training courses to other code users and industry. Potential registrants include architects and engineers, contractors, inspectors for other levels of government, and students of architecture, engineering, and architectural and structural technology.

I would now like to outline the initiatives this government has taken to achieve the second goal of our building industry strategy, namely, to expand production for both foreign and domestic markets. From our research we know that poor and inadequate market information is a major constraint for industry managers. Lack of information hampers planning for export markets and does not allow managers to anticipate and offset import penetration. Through the Building Industry Strategy Board, initiatives are under way to develop qualitative timely market information on opportunities in domestic, United States and global markets.

As a first step, a database is being established to provide detailed information on: building industry activity, focusing on expenditures in residential and nonresidential construction activity in Ontario and Canada; the impact of the construction industry on employment, income, government tax revenues and imports from other countries and provinces; domestic export and import of building products, focusing on market volumes and shipments by producers; and building industrial activity in export markets, to review the volume of building construction expenditures in Canada's major building-product export markets and to identify major competitors for the US market.

Identifying new export opportunities and import replacement opportunities is critical to a healthy building industry and to the people who work in building. For instance, increasing our exports of building products by a modest 10 per cent will create 7,700 jobs in Ontario. Reducing our imports by a similar amount will create another 8,000 jobs. The rewards can be substantial.

Much of the research to compile a database has been completed, with reports currently undergoing consolidation and refinement. After input from Statistics Canada is compiled and analysed as part of the overall picture, the consultants and a steering committee of the Building Industry Strategy Board will identify domestic and export market opportunities and disseminate this information to appropriate industry members.

Another thrust of our plan to expand production involves creating a construction information system for building products. The system will allow us to generate and disseminate, store and retrieve product information on an industry-wide basis.

A subcommittee of the Building Industry Strategy Board has been established under the chairmanship of Miles McMenemy, senior vice-president, corporate affairs, Cadillac Fairview Corp. It will examine current construction information systems, evaluate alternative systems, determine industry needs and develop an information system to meet those needs.

Let me now turn to the third goal of our building industry strategy, to improve productivity. The building industry strategy tackles productivity on several fronts, with the primary focus on training and education. Let me outline some of the initiatives under way in this area. We know from our studies that effective skills development for all sectors of the building industry is essential. The building industry strategy addresses educational and career development needs at every level, from tradesmen and tradeswomen to managers, builders and contractors.

For instance, two unique pilot programs devoted to middle management are currently being developed on a cost-shared basis with the Construction Management Institute. One program focuses on the project co-ordinator at the general-contractor level. The second program is for the contract administrator in an architect's office. Both are computer-assisted learning programs and are the first of their kind in the construction industry.

In the area of skills training for the trades, my ministry is working closely with several building associations to determine industry needs, both short-term and long-term. To this end, ministry staff recently conducted a series of discussions with the training and education committee of the Toronto Home Builders' Association. Following these discussions, the association hired a fulltime employee to liase with my ministry's building industry branch in addressing members' skills-development needs.

Similar discussions are now under way with the Ontario Home Builders' Association and the Council of Ontario Construction Associations to gain a broader perspective on industry members. Our work with these associations is also driving home the need for real commitment on the part of the industry members to training.

1550

On yet another front, we are working closely with the Ministry of Skills Development to ensure Ontario's construction industry is allocated its fair share of training assistance dollars under the Canadian Jobs Strategy. We are also working with community industrial training committees to ensure that the construction industry will have access to training assistance money under a new federal-provincial training agreement that was signed recently.

Under the agreement, training assistance will be given directly to the committees to purchase local labour-needs surveys and required training programs. Traditionally, the construction industry has not been represented on these committees, but its presence now will allow it access to these funds, a total of $9 million in 1986-87 and more than $40 million in 1987-88.

A subcommittee of the building industry board is also providing input into an upcoming review of apprenticeship programs in Ontario to ensure construction industry needs are addressed.

Our building industry strategy also recognizes the need to attract more young people to the field of building construction. At our building forum held in November, a building career centre was established to give young people information about a wide range of building career opportunities, the skills required, how to develop those skills and the salary expectations. I am pleased to report that almost 4,500 students from across Ontario toured the building career centre, where 25 industry associations provided career guidelines for our young people.

I mentioned that the career centre was part of the building forum that took place in November. That brings me to the fourth goal of the building industry strategy, namely, to increase awareness and co-operation within the building industry. More than 2,000 people attended this very successful initiative, which was cosponsored by the Building Industry Strategy Board, the Council of Ontario Construction Associations and many other industry groups. I want to report that the forum was self-supporting; that is, we broke even on this major undertaking.

Finally, I want to spend a few minutes discussing the final goal of the building industry centre, a world-class centre for Ontario's building industry. The Building Industry Strategy Board, after consultation with the construction industry, identified the need for an industry-driven Ontario building centre. This centre would be the magnet to attract the fragmented and diverse efforts of this highly decentralized industry. It would be an international centre, housing the daily activities of a vibrant industry.

Building centres have been built in many other countries with varying degrees of success. These include Belgium, Denmark, France, Japan, the Netherlands and West Germany, to name just a few. The Bouwcentrum in the Netherlands, for instance, is economically viable and contributes significantly to the success of the building industry in that country.

However, there are no building centres to speak of in North America. There are trade centres in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Dallas and most major cities in the United States. There is also Place Bonaventure in Montreal. These, however, are trade centres, not building centres, and they are mainly concerned with furniture, furnishings, garments and lately computer products.

We have the opportunity in Ontario to create a blend of those other centres, understanding their strengths and weaknesses. What we propose could ensure the economic and product viability of an international building centre in Ontario. The centre could become the permanent hub of economic activity for the industry, its participants and its users. The building centre would not be just research- and technically-oriented. The building centre would be the focus for the marketing of the building industry.

A major effort needs to be initiated to reverse the serious trends currently facing the building industry. For example, construction activity has declined as a percentage of gross national product by as much as 27 per cent over the past 10 years and Ontario's share of Canadian construction expenditures is growing smaller, down from 34 per cent in 1971-75 to 26 per cent in 1981-84.

What is proposed as a building centre does not exist anywhere else in the world. It would be an innovative first for Canada, a unique concept that would become the permanent centre for the daily activities of the building construction industry.

A building centre such as that being envisioned would be comprehensive. There are 11 individual components, ranging from an extensive exhibition component that would create a one-stop shopping centre for the buyers of building products from at home and abroad, and an electronic database system component that would utilize the world's most advanced database systems, to a design-centre component that would feature computer-assisted design, libraries and software and offer architectural advice. The remaining components include a communications component, a business and office component, an educational component, a research component, a trading component, a financial component and a hospitality component.

At present, a subcommittee of the building industry is investigating the feasibility of such a centre for Ontario.

Mr. Gordon: The minister has given us quite an extensive briefing on vote 1902 today prior to discussing it, but to really examine vote 1902 and the Ontario building program he has been talking about, to examine it in any kind of detail and with any kind of relevance, it is important to reflect in comparison with what we were discussing last Monday in the House.

As the minister will recall, in our discussions on Monday we noted there had been a 34.4 per cent increase in expenditures in that vote over 1985-86. In other words, in the ministry administration program there had been an increase from $9.2 million to approximately $12.4 million, which is, as the minister well knows, a $3-million increase.

1600

The one thing we all want in this province and in this Legislature is to be sure that when there is an increase of that magnitude in any one section of a budget in comparison with vote 1902, it is evident that there is going to be a tangible benefit to the people of Ontario. I am sure the minister would agree with me on that.

Interjection.

Mr. Gordon: I see that he has agreed with me. Let the record show that he said, "For sure." Unfortunately, to be perfectly frank with the minister, I cannot see that benefit. I can see an excessive increase in that budget, an increase of 34.6 per cent, but in the last session on Monday, the minister was not able to explain to us the objectives or the reasons why. We had an increase of 42 per cent in legal; we had a tremendous increase as well in information services, an increase of as much as 30 per cent. These kinds of increases give us pause. We all know in this province that administration is basically pushing paper. Pushing paper at an increase of $3 million does not build an apartment unit worth $60,000.

Today, the minister read a very extensive statement called Building Industry Strategy and went into a fair amount of detail about his plans. One of the things I would like to know, and then I can continue with what I am saying, is exactly how much money the building industry is going to be putting into this building industry strategy.

Hon. Mr. Curling: That is a good question. The member can see the confidence that the private sector is placing in the government lately. I expect they will put in as much as they can. I cannot give the member a definite figure of how much the private sector will put into the building industry strategy. Since it is a vibrant industry, it will put in as much as it can to get a return and make it worth its while. They want to make sure that the building industry strategy works properly in the province.

Mr. Gordon: I do not think any of us in this House is against the fact that the Ministry of Housing plans to work closely with the development industry to create jobs in the future. I do not think anybody in this House is against us seeing better building practices in this province or against seeing that tradesmen are better trained. The tradesmen themselves take courses to see that they achieve a certain level of expertise. There is no one in this province who is against seeing the export of our construction materials or goods to other countries. We are all in favour of that.

What gives people cause for concern is when they hear the Minister of Housing get up in the House and tell us he has a building strategy with all kinds of objectives and all kinds of training programs supposedly involved with it, with what sounds to me a very extensive computerization of practically everything that is related to building or housing in this province, no matter which city or town one happens to be in.

People have a concern when they hear all these plans and when they hear that the increase in this budget is so significant. In 1985-86, the budget for the Ontario, building program was $2.2 million. In the 1986-87 estimates, which we are talking about right now, the minister's projected budget is $6,644,640. That is a change of more than $4,435,600 and an increase of 200 per cent.

It sounds to me as if the moneys the ministry is spending are primarily to help the developers sort out the various planning codes that have been put in place by municipalities around this province. Developers always complain about the fact that towns, villages and cities want to control the destiny of their neighbourhoods, of their wards. Does the minister mean to tell me that he is going to spend 200 per cent more, up to $4.4 million over last year, and yet he does not know how much money these people whom he says he is going to help will put into it?

I thought the development industry, the construction people, were in it to make money. I thought that was one of the reasons they were in the development industry. That is one of the reasons they build homes, apart from the fact that people want homes. If a person wants a home, the contractor builds the home for him or her. What is the minister doing? Is he trying to make them wealthier? Can he explain to this House what is going on?

Hon. Mr. Curling: As the member observed, my opening statement on that vote was rather extensive. There were two reasons for it being extensive. At this time, in the calendar year of the budget, we are well into the estimates. I thought I would provide the member with things that have been done.

I went to great pains in expressing to him the size and the type of industry with which we are dealing. We are dealing with a $12.1-billion industry. I went into detail in expressing to the member how big the industry is. I related to him the number of people who are employed, the size of it and how fragmented this industry is.

I also went into detail in laying out the strategy by saying that governments cannot stand by and ignore an industry that is so large. If the member is saying that $6.6 million is a whopping amount of money to an industry that will employ one of the largest numbers of people in this province, I then wrestle with the thought of whether he does understand the industry itself. I would urge him to reread Hansard or the brief to see the amount of detail I went through to tell him why one must spend $6.6 million to handle things such as regulations that are hampering the progress and efficiency of the building industry.

I can go on if the member wants me to -- I know he wants to ask me very pertinent questions later on, so I will not take up his time -- to tell him the other strategies to improve the industry. Recently, he saw how disorganized it seemed with the Ryan Homes issue. The industry felt it could look to a ministry or ministries to help organize itself. I do not think $6.6 million in an industry such as that is very much.

The last point I would like to mention is that the building centre, about which I spoke with such emotion and excitement, because I know it will do very well for the province, and not only for the province but also for Canada, will all be built by private money, by private investors.

1610

Mr. Gordon: Really, I find the minister's answer to be completely inane. Granted, when it comes to single-family housing and the building of duplexes in this province, we are going through a real boom perhaps at present and we are going to be going through a boom for the next two years; but anybody who knows anything about the demographics of this province will tell the minister that much of the single-family housing that is being built now is going to serve the population that is now coming up and that will follow this population.

I see the minister taking a budget that formerly was $2.2 million and jacking it up to $6 million, an increase of $4.4 million, a 200 per cent increase, and I see him throwing money around like water. To me, this is no different from what he did with Bill 51. His idea is to go around and spend money to get groups together and give them whatever they want. His ministry is out of fiscal control, and I do not think he as the minister is running it.

I will give him an illustration. Let us take the administration of his ministry. The administration for the entire ministry, all his administration programs, which run throughout the whole budget for 1986-87, will cost $42,899,900, and that is an increase of $16,367,000 over 1985-86. That is an increase of 62 per cent. Can the minister tell me how many new homes that is going to build? Administration does not build homes. What is he up to?

Hon. Mr. Curling: If I understand the honourable member, he is saying we should not have any structure there to co-ordinate the industry. He says administration does not build homes. If I understand the member properly, he understands housing and construction as only residential. It is more than residential. He feels this government or this ministry has not done more since it has taken office than was previously done. I would then ask the member to go back and re-examine the records to see the number of rental units we have built and approved, to see the co-operation we have got in the industry.

If I understand the member too, if he feels that the people who are employed in this industry -- I go back to that -- should not be efficient, competent and skilled people, architects and designers, that we cannot exploit those types of qualities and the kind of product we have and that we should not co-ordinate ourselves in order to exploit those qualities, then I would say he does not understand what housing should be all about. I feel that the increase in funds that we have got during the last year will show great results and is showing good results now.

Mr. Gordon: Let us deal with one issue the minister brought up about the amount of housing there is in this province at present. Let us talk about that for a moment. Let us read the latest statistics from Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. In London, there is a 0.6 per cent vacancy rate. That means there are only 277 apartment units available out of a possible total of 46,145. In Ottawa, it is 1.7 per cent; Sudbury, 0.7 per cent; and Toronto, 0.1. This means in Toronto there are only 452 apartments available out of 452,547.

What is the minister trying to tell me about all this money he will be spending on the construction industry? What he has done is literally opened up the coffers for these people. All of us in this House could understand it if he was going to spend an extra $500,000 or $700,000, but when we see the figure the minister is talking about, it blows us out of the water. He cannot tell me that is not giving the shop away. It is.

I know the minister is anxious to talk about the paper he just gave, so I will give him that opportunity. Will he tell us the objectives of the Ontario building program?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I will be happy to tell the member the prime objective of this program. It is to lead Ontario's building industry towards increased job creation, industry growth and development by establishing new markets, increasing productivity and reducing the regulatory burden the industry has faced over the years.

I presume that might be a little bit difficult to comprehend because in the past there was no strategy in place. I remember introducing the comprehensive housing policy. Many times I stated in this House I could not believe the government in power did not have a housing policy. Now that we have a strategy, it is hard for the member to believe we play a part, that we are going on and that it is accepted by the industry. He is asking what it is all about. I ask the member to go back to the briefing book and look at page 68, which will tell him what the objectives of the building program are.

Mr. Gordon: I would like to ask the minister about the rent review administrators. How many rent review administrators will be assigned to each branch of the Ministry of Housing? How will the number of such administrators be allocated?

Hon. Mr. Curling: With all due respect, I will ask the member if we can address that under the proper vote. I do not think it falls under this vote. We are dealing with the Ontario building program vote.

The Deputy Chairman: You can talk on vote 1902 only. That was the understanding right from the beginning. We are going vote by vote. It was proposed by the member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville).

Mr. Reville: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: I wonder if the member for Sudbury would mind if I made some general comments about the Ontario building program under vote 1902 before he gets into more of his specific questions? He does not mind? Thank you.

The Deputy Chairman: You will be debating on vote 1902?

Mr. Reville: Yes, absolutely. In fact, I was not going to debate so much as to make a response to the very fine statement the minister read to begin the vote.

At the outset, the minister will probably find it hard to believe what his ears are hearing, because this is one area in which I will not be very critical of the Ministry of Housing, except to wonder what the Ontario building program is doing in that ministry.

1620

I am not being facetious. I am not trying to compare the relative success of this particular program with that of other programs of the Ministry of Housing. I just have a little bit of difficulty understanding the philosophical connection between the Ontario building program and the rest of the functions undertaken by the ministry.

It strikes me that the activity under vote 1902 relates to the strength of the building industry and the regulatory framework within which it operates. The building industry spends a great deal of its time building things that are not housing, such as industrial buildings, commercial buildings or highways, none of which we recommend people live in, although we know people do live on highways, in factories and sometimes in commercial buildings.

That said, this function has to occur somewhere. It strikes me almost as though it is a job creation function and might more properly rest with the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology. I am not going to get hung up on this type of thing, but it is a bit of an oddball in the Ministry of Housing. Some of the other people in the Ministry of Housing are oddballs too. I will tell members who they are later.

For some reason or other, my friend the member for Sudbury has understated -- it is unlike him to understate things, but he has understated the magnitude of the change in this particular section, because he is reading from a different line than I would read from. As I look at the program and activity outline, we go from $2 million to $3 million to $9 million. Perhaps the member for Sudbury has been mesmerized by the fancy figures of the ministry, because the difference lies in the special warrants that have been used to gather money. In fact, the amount to be voted is considerably less than the budget of this section and the magnitude of the increase is about 300 per cent. That seems to be because a whole new activity has been taken on, which is worth about $5.3 million and which has at least 24 staff connected to it.

In general terms, I am in favour of this activity. I am not sure what payoff the minister is expecting, but there is no question -- let me rephrase that. Payoff has a pejorative connotation, and I certainly do not mean that. What is the return on the public investment the minister is expecting here?

There is no question that the building industry is incredibly important to our economy. There is no question that the jobs created by the building industry are, in the main, very good jobs. They require skill and they pay good wages. There are indeed problems about construction jobs because those in the construction industry are subject to a very high rate of injury, as we know from listening to my colleague the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel). It is one of the things that might be addressed usefully by the Ministry of Housing, given that its connection and befriending of the building industry has improved so much. That is another entry point into trying to make construction jobs safer.

Having been a construction worker for a number of years, I am one of those who is very much offended by the advertising I see on the television which indicates that the worker is dumb. In fact, what happens on the job site is that the worker does not have a choice about how he or she works. There is an economic compulsion to work unsafely that is laid on workers by their employers. Having been an employer of workers when I was a contractor, that was an issue that was very close to my heart.

I actually had to lecture my employees about working safely and to avoid this type of construction heroism that often goes on, of people dangling off the end of an inappropriate ladder with 100 pounds of equipment, rather than putting up the scaffolding that was provided. That is a function that is not mentioned here, but it is something the minister could do some good work on.

It would be of interest to know from the minister, perhaps at a later time, what target he has in terms of an increase in construction activity in the building industry, so that he can then say to the taxpayers, as can I, that the additional $5.3 million has been well spent and that we have gone from here to here in terms of investment in the community and jobs. That would be useful to know. I am sure his staff has considered what target it has in mind and what return on this investment would be appropriate.

What also needs some explanation in terms of the presentation the minister made today is an analysis of why construction activity has declined as a percentage of the gross national product and in terms of our construction activity vis-à-vis other provinces of Canada. My impression is that new home construction, renovation activity and commercial building are booming; so I do not understand how we have lost ground in terms of activity in other provinces. Is some major hydro project skewing the figures in some other province? I cannot imagine that our own hydro activity is less grandiose than that of others. Some analysis is necessary. I suspect it has been done in the targeting work the minister has already done but has not told us about yet.

The minister will know from listening to me speak about housing matters that for 15 years I was in the building trades, both as a worker and as a boss. I have a lot of painful personal experience about some of the matters addressed in his presentation. There is no question that it is past time when the building regulations and codes have to be rationalized. Today in Metro and the surrounding area, the different municipalities deal differently with their whole inspection process and permit application process. Some of their requirements are vastly different.

I recall many an occasion when, if you went across the street from the city of Toronto to the borough of East York, you would confront vastly different situations. This is foolish and needs to be sorted out. There has traditionally been an incredible lack of sensitivity on the part of governments in general towards those who have to work for a living. A contractor cannot afford to stand for hours in a lineup only to be told he is in the wrong lineup.

When I was an alderman in Toronto, I spent a lot of time trying to reorganize the building permit section. There was an absurd situation where the first person in line might be a woman who wanted to replace her porch and the next person in line wanted to build the Toronto-Dominion Centre. Some useful work was done so that the battleships were separated from the rowboats. That sort of thing needs to happen more often.

Specifically, the Ontario plumbing code is in terrible need of revision. For instance, there is incredible confusion about the use of ABS pipe, which has a different impact on the tradesperson or on the person who is paying for the job, depending on which municipality one is in or even depending on which inspector one is talking to on a given day.

1630

I know it is an incredibly complex exercise to try to rationalize the codes but they very much need to be rationalized. There is no question that a number of them are no longer appropriate and some of them are incredibly appropriate but have created other problems. For instance, the new fire code provisions are very important but they create various kinds of problems when trying to achieve other goals. A method has to be found whereby these problems can be sorted out.

The other question which is vexing and which may have landed in this ministry from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs is the question of the liability of the municipality in terms of the whole plan examination exercise. It has always struck me as absurd that a municipality has to do an engineering approval on a project. It creates an incredible, absurd municipal liability which is probably not necessary, given the existence of an engineer's stamp on a project. That has been vexing for those municipal officials who have time from their line responsibilities to think about the policy framework and some of the problems.

I am sure some of the minister's officials will have heard from the chief building official of many a municipality that the ordeal and potential legal liability of trying to determine the stress factor of a particular truss -- "truss" is an actual building expression; I have to explain that to my colleague the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman), who is arriving at the age when other kinds of trusses are more popular.

Nevertheless, a truss of any kind is a good thing if it is designed properly. If it bears an architect's stamp, probably the municipality does not have to check it all out again. I see the deputy minister far away, nodding his head. I do not know what that means but I will take it as a sign of some kind.

As I have said, there are wide variations from municipality to municipality, not only in the substance of the matters that are regulated but also in terms of the efficiency and the speed with which they are regulated.

My heart leaped in my breast when I heard the minister use the words "import replacement" on page 18. I thought, goodness gracious, have I missed the minister lurking around the New Democratic Party caucus room, where we talk about nothing else but import replacement? If we could produce more of the products used by the building industry in Ontario, there is no question, in an industry as large as the building industry, we would create additional spinoff jobs in Ontario, jobs that are very much needed. I applaud the minister's theft of an NDP notion and I have a lot of other delightful notions that I invite him to steal as well. They will be revealed to him in due course.

When the minister talks about skills training, I am concerned that I do not see him working with the tradespeople and their trade unions. Maybe that was an oversight in terms of the list of people he was working with, but it seems to me he should be working not only with the builders but also with the workers to see what their appreciation of the training opportunities is.

I have some concerns about the effectiveness of the training assistance dollars under the Canadian Jobs Strategy program. I know the ministry is working with the Ministry of Skills Development, which is working with the feds, I guess. I do not know whether they have done work on who gets the jobs, on what happens to the people after they have had these jobs or on whether we are just fattening some of the big contractors who already have lots of work and are in a position to put up with the absurd administration of some of these federal-provincial job creation strategies.

Having been involved in some of them myself, I know they are subject to a lot of goofy regulations that militate against the smaller operator who does not have a lot of staff to try to sort out the time lines and reporting requirements or who perhaps does not have the capital to fund the operation until the government finally gets around to issuing the cheque that is supposed to subsidize the program. That is something that needs looking into.

The other thing that seems to be missing is contact with the Ministry of Education to get advice or input on the relevance of the various technical courses that are offered. We hear in the House all the time how the Ontario Schools, Intermediate and Senior Divisions curriculum guidelines have had a negative impact on those who would take technical training and about how technical training is actually discouraged.

There are other problems that are not the minister's problems; they are the problems of the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway), but in the end they are the problems of all of us. If the idea is to try to encourage young people or any people to go into the building industry, then it is appropriate and timely to look at the training that is available in our schools to see whether, after students have received that training, the building industry is interested in them.

The courses for some of the trades that are offered through our educational system are considered not to be worth the powder to blow them to hell. The young person who wants to take trade training must find an employer who is willing to look for things such as willingness to learn and then take him on, regardless of the education he has received. Our trade training can be much improved. That is another thing the Ministry of Housing, through the Ontario building program, can usefully lobby a brother ministry about.

I was delighted to see that the minister did not read the five paragraphs that for some reason or other, in my copy of his statement, have been repeated. Obviously, the minister is very alert. I want him to know I was alert too and I saw those five paragraphs were repeated. I think he was just trying to trick me. They are on pages 24 and 25.

Mr. Wildman: They must have been very important.

Mr. Reville: They were. Actually, when I saw them repeated, I thought the minister was adopting a technique that I used to suffer through when I was a kid in the choir. The minister at my church used to say everything five times. When I had heard everything said five times, I knew I had to get my comic book shoved away and get my hymn book out again because it was coming to the end.

As a final remark, I am worried about one of the components of the building centre, but not because I think it is a bad idea. I urge the minister to make sure the very last component, the hospitality component, involves a cash bar. The building industry has been known to visit free bars with a lot of vigour. I caution the minister that the hospitality component should come equipped with an audit and a cash register.

Those are my general remarks for the time being. I am sure the minister will want to acknowledge how unaccustomedly gracious I have been today.

1640

Hon. Mr. Curling: This may come as a surprise to my honourable critic from the third party, but he is always a congenial gentleman. I am not at all surprised that when he sees logical flaws in sensible policies he says so.

Mr. Reville: Do not get carried away.

Hon. Mr. Curling: We are on vote 1902, so I will talk about just that. Later on, he will of course exercise his emotion and criticism. Let me touch on the last point he made, about the hospitality suite.

Many times, when business is being conducted, the first thing is to understand and know someone in a less tense atmosphere. Also, all this is being paid for by the industry itself. No taxpayers' money is being thrown around to have an open bar. I presume that if they do have open bars, it is their money anyhow.

Another serious and important point the member emphasizes is the fact that young people coming into this industry are turned off about the manner in which they are treated. I am sensitive about that. I think the industry is also aware of that situation. If they are not, it is something on which I keep a watchful eye. From my background, I can see many professional roles that students would go into except that they are fearful of how they will be treated -- or their interpretation or knowledge of the profession itself. That is something we should watch.

We should encourage young people. We had a career centre at the most recent forum, and the Building Tomorrow conference was held in November. They were more or less thrilled to know that the industry had taken time out to come to welcome them into the industry -- also women, who are not easily attracted to that industry. We are trying to encourage that more.

The member spoke about returns. I expect a tremendous amount of returns from this. The reason for that is they are putting all their ideas together and can exchange ideas. We talk about exports. With that, we could target markets and recognize places that could use many of our resources.

I do not intend to go on, because the member said I might just continue to say how much he agrees with this strategy. If I want to get turned on about this again, I will read the Hansard of his remarks. I do not need to do that any more.

That being said, I hope I have not left anything the member wanted me to comment on. if that is so, I will be glad to comment on that.

Mr. Gordon: I notice on page 27 the minister talks about the decline in the construction industry in the country in general. I wonder whether the minister can enlighten us. For example, he says, "Construction activity has declined as a percentage of GNP by as much as 27 per cent over the last 10 years and Ontario's share of Canadian construction expenditure is growing smaller, down from 34 per cent...to 26 per cent in 1981-84."

Can the minister tell us why this is occurring in this province and in this country? Can he give us some of the reasons?

Hon. Mr. Curling: Although we have recently seen great activity in the residential area of the construction industry, the figures have shown there has been a decline. This business is one of peaks and valleys. Although we see a great activity here, the figures show that, regardless of all that, there was quite a bit less activity in the construction industry.

Specifically, we presume the demand is not constant. One of the things we look at is the idea that we could start distributing where the demand or the supply could be constant so that it would more or less encourage employment on a constant basis, I presume because of the demand they are feeling that is there. I saw a figure today -- and I do not want to quote that too much -- that most of the houses that will be needed in the next 20 years will be built in the next five years or something in that area.

Concerning what specifically is causing this, I could not give him complete detail, especially on that.

Mr. Gordon: I would have thought the minister would be able to give me an answer on that, given the fact that he is going to be spending great gobs of money in order to promote various strategies. He says he has to spend up to 200 per cent more this year because he wants to improve the construction trades, he wants to get more building materials, perhaps develop better building materials, develop export markets and so forth. However, if the minister cannot explain to this House why there has been such a decline in the construction industry, how can we have faith in him that he knows what he is doing now?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I explained to the member some of the problems we are facing in the industry and told him what the strategy is all about. I have told him about the regulation problems we have and told him the purpose of the strategy. He recognizes that. My honourable friend in the third party also recognizes the strategy is needed that way.

We have also identified that we could do better in exports in our product and our expertise, and the member is saying I cannot tell him why it is declining. I presume he is almost like the economist. I presume he sees me as the answer to it all. His expectations are pretty high. I respect that and I will not let him down. But in the meantime, I will deal with the fragmentation aspect of the construction industry, which I have laid out in my opening remarks, and those areas. I think productivity will be increased as soon as we address those issues.

Mr. Gordon: I made it very clear at the beginning that no one has any objections to there being less regulation; no one has any objections to the construction phase being helped a little more. These are normal things. Most people in Ontario look at it that way. Common sense prevails.

What disturbs me a little, though, is that there seems to be in the minister's report a kind of blind faith in such groups as consultants. I recall a number of years ago when I was the mayor of Sudbury, the regional municipality decided it wanted to do what the member for Riverdale, the Housing critic for the New Democratic Party, was talking about a little while ago: import replacement.

They went out and got a consulting firm and said: "We in Sudbury believe if we could replace some of the types of materials and supplies that go into the major industry in our area, such as the mining companies, perhaps we could have some of this made here in Sudbury. Let us have an import replacement study."

1650

I was sitting on the council at that time, and being naïve, much younger than I am now, I thought: "Gee, is that not great? Let us have a study. Why not? We will get these consultants to come in and do a study." They came in and did a study. Lo and behold, after the study was done and everybody had read it over, it turned out that the study really did not identify what they had hoped it would identify. As a result, the import replacement study did not work out. It was a bust. Despite the fact that when the consultants first came in, they told the council, "We can do this, this and this, and you will get these results," when the report came in, the results just were not there.

A few years went by. I was still the mayor of Sudbury, and lo and behold, the regional municipality came down again to the regional council and said: "For that last import replacement study we had done, those consultants were the wrong group of consultants. They were not able to handle the study." They were going to hire another group of consultants.

I said at that time: "Look, fellows, forget it. We can figure out more about import replacements as a municipality than these consultants can, coming from their ivory tower in the south." We have to talk that way sometimes in the north. We should not. We do not now; we have become more enlightened. We see everybody as being equal and the same, but there are times when we see things a little differently.

The second group of consultants came up and got the job. Lo and behold, does the minister know what happened? They blew it too. The report was useless when we got it back. They were an even bigger consulting firm. In fact, I think the regional municipality paid more than $100,000 for that study.

The reason I bring this story up is that I have a suspicion that consultants do not always give you what you think you are going to get for the money you put out. I can see that in this report the minister is planning to spend a considerable amount of money on consultants in this strategy. Can the minister enlighten the House as to what part of the funding of this additional $4 million we are going to spend in 1986-87 will be going to consultants, and what firms he has in mind to ask to do this consulting work? Better still, because I am very concerned about the kinds of results that consultants bring back, what criteria will be used to select those firms?

Hon. Mr. Curling: Page 73 in the briefing book will answer the first question about how much money will be spent on consultants' services. The member will see a figure of $4 million there; the consultants' fees will be paid from that.

The criteria that will be used will be the criteria set up by the government under the Manual of Administration. The member is quite familiar with that because he was in the Ministry of Government Services, which handles many of those contracts to see that they go through the proper procedure. We follow that very closely with regard to consultants.

On the question about the details of the criteria that will be used in what will be studied, I can get back to him and give him the types of studies and exactly what we have been doing in that area.

Mr. Gordon: The minister pointed out to me page 73 as the page on which I could find out how much he is going to be paying consultants. I happen to have page 73 right here, and I defy him to show me on page 73 the exact amount the consultants are going to be getting.

The minister made it sound as if all I had to do was read my briefing book. I learned how to read in grade 1, and I can tell the minister right now that there is nothing about consultants on page 73. As a matter of fact, there are salaries and wages, employee benefits, transportation and communications, services and supplies and equipment.

I do not like the suggestion that if only I would read my briefing book, I would know what the devil is going on. I am finding things a little difficult today because we have a minister who does not know what is going on in his ministry. There is the other situation as well. If the minister cannot tell us why the construction trades were down over that period of years, as I asked him to do a few minutes ago, it surely is not a very good reflection on his staff. How can he tell the people of Ontario that the Ministry of Housing can get more houses and more apartment units built in this province? A little while ago, I read out to him the present vacancy rate in this province. It is an absolute disgrace. With that, I would like to turn to another point.

Hon. Mr. Curling: Does the member want me to answer that?

Mr. Gordon: Sure; go ahead.

Hon. Mr. Curling: I am wondering what caused my honourable friend to be in such a rage. Of course he is quite a literate man and I am sure he can read, but I question his hearing a little. I said there was $4 million in services; within that line, consultants will be paid. That is what I said. I have no doubt he can read pretty well. He asked me the figures that would be paid and I said to him I would come back to him and list the consultants, the tasks they would undertake and the amounts that would be paid. I hope that will answer the member's question.

Mr. Gordon: I would like to compliment the ministry on its decision to go ahead with a building trades centre. This is a concept that has worked well in other countries, and in Ontario it could very well prove to be of benefit to us. I would like to ask about this building centre. When is the building centre going to be created? How much public money does the minister expect this centre to cost?

Hon. Mr. Curling: The feasibility study is being done. It was set up under the building industry strategy. I cannot say when, but as soon as the study is done, I presume it will indicate when this will come about. My staff says the study will be completed by the fall. I know how anxious the member is to get this going because he is complimenting us for the fact that this centre is so important. By the fall, when it is ready, I will make sure he has that report.

Mr. Gordon: Since this is such a major project, I wonder whether the minister can enlighten us as to which firm has the study and how much the ministry is paying for it?

Hon. Mr. Curling: It has not been tendered yet.

Mr. Gordon: I thought the minister said it was under way at present.

Hon. Mr. Curling: I said a study will be done and will be ready by the fall. It has not been tendered yet.

1700

Mr. Reville: Estimates always have a bit of an air of unreality about them because we tend to forget that the money has already gone. I expect most of the money has been spent by now. Surely the minister will not have much difficulty giving us a list of the consultants who were hired and whether they have completed their projects and whether the minister saw that they were good. We would be interested in knowing all those kinds of things and I am sure the minister wants to tell us that in due course.

While he is looking for that information, unless I am misunderstanding -- perhaps he will correct me if I am; I will ask him a question and then I will know -- in terms of some of the objectives of the building industry strategy, such as the promotion of increased exports of building goods manufactured here and the reduction of imports of goods used here, is a study being undertaken or are we already able to measure whether any strategy undertaken has been effective?

Hon. Mr. Curling: My staff has advised me that none of these studies has been started yet; none of these studies has been done to date.

Mr. Reville: Does that mean none of the consulting contracts has been let?

Hon. Mr. Curling: Yes. The member was asking about the import-export --

Mr. Reville: If I may clarify, up to $4 million is for services, most of which I understand is for consultants' fees; I assume consultants will undertake the feasibility study for the building trades centre. I am now trying to determine what other studies will be undertaken. Have contracts been let? For instance, is the ministry going to study how to reduce the imports of building goods and how to increase the exports of building goods, or is it just going to measure how well a more strategically minded industry performs?

Hon. Mr. Curling: If the member's concern is about how much has been spent, I gather only about $250,000 of that $4 million has been spent to date. The first thing is to identify the issues, challenges and opportunities for the industry. This whole program is pretty new and most of it is just starting up. Of the $4 million, roughly $250,000 has been spent so far on the consultants I talked about.

Mr. Reville: That gives rise to the next question. Is it going to be possible to spend the balance of the money before the end of the fiscal year?

Hon. Mr. Curling: Considering that today is January 15, I am not going on a spending binge; I do not think we will be spending much of that money this year.

Mr. Reville: Then why are you asking for it this year?

Hon. Mr. Curling: If there is a concern that we will lose this money next year, we have made a provision that we will retain that money, so the program will go on. We operate, as with any other programs, to set things in motion and to get programs going. Sometimes it does not move as fast as it should. If things had moved as we had anticipated, we would have spent it all. We would never ask the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) for money that we did not think we could expend within the fiscal year. However, since we did not have a chance to spend it, we have made sure we will not lose it.

Mr. Reville: We had better not let the Treasurer find out that the minister did not spend all his money.

I wonder whether the minister will be tabling in the House soon some numbers that we need in terms of being able to assess how well any of these programs have worked. For instance, it would be useful to know how much in the way of building goods we are currently importing and exporting. Then, in the fullness of time, we can say bravo to the minister because he has changed that relationship or we can say, "Minister, you had better change your approach because it does not work." If the minister will undertake to provide some numbers on current levels of imports and exports, then maybe next year we will remember that and see how well we did.

Hon. Mr. Curling: I will be happy to provide that information to the member.

Mr. Gordon: I have pretty well covered the points I want to raise in regard to vote 1902, but I want to reiterate that while vote 1902 has a program that most of us would say is a commonsense one, the program will make some significant changes to the future of the building industry in Ontario and to the regulations surrounding that industry.

However, I believe the increase in the budget is exorbitant: a 200 per cent increase from $2.2 million to $6.6 million, which is a $4-million increase, and the addition of 27 people to the staff of the ministry. I wonder whether the minister could not go back and sharpen his pencil a little, especially in the last half of this year, to see whether he could save a little money for the taxpayers of Ontario. As minister, he has a program to manage and policies to put in place. With regard to the Ontario building program, he could have sharpened his pencil a little more.

Vote 1902 agreed to.

On vote 1903, real estate program:

Mr. Chairman: Are there copies of the statement, minister?

Hon. Mr. Curling: Yes, there are.

With respect to vote 1903, the real estate program includes the Ontario Land Corp. and its wholly owned subsidiary, the Ontario Mortgage Corp. Some important policy changes have taken place over the past few months that will have a significant impact on the province. On July 2, 1985, at the opening of the new session of the Legislature, members may recall the Premier (Mr. Peterson) announced that the government was initiating an assessment of all crown corporations and assets and that an advisory group would be established under John Kruger, special adviser to the Premier.

As a result of a paper prepared by Mr. Kruger, cabinet adopted recommendations to develop a strategic policy on provincial land holdings, on Ontario Land Corp. land banking and on the Ontario Mortgage Corp. mortgage portfolio.

1710

In addition, the Treasurer announced in his budget statement of October 24, 1985, that the government was writing down the difference between the previous book value and the current market value of the lands held by OLC and that the lands would be transferred to the appropriate ministries or sold as market conditions permit.

He added that the loss between book and market value of $1.82 million was being written off and that the remaining land value of $271 million was being expensed. The effect of the Treasurer's statement was to remove the debt repayment and loss constraints and thereby provide new policies and approaches for the disposal of OLC lands.

In keeping with these two important decisions with respect to OLC, it received approval from cabinet in March 1986 to modify its corporate plan by accelerating the disposal of the majority of its lands within a period of five years wherever possible. OLC is responsible for the financing, development, management and marketing of provincially owned lands for residential, commercial and industrial uses.

Until last March, OLC's corporate plan was to sell all its land assets within a 10- to 15-year time frame. Its goals were to repay its total debt to the Treasurer and to Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. for those lands held in partnership with the federal government. Those are to offset losses with profits and to sell lands in a businesslike manner as market conditions permit.

OLC lands are of various types and are located through the province. They range from agricultural lands to valuable lands strategically located adjacent to cities and towns. Some are surplus to the government's needs, while others could serve a variety of public purposes. These lands have been grouped into five categories, based on market conditions. Of the total portfolio of some 25,495 hectares or 63,000 acres, approximately half is predominantly agricultural and has no development potential. These lands will be offered for sale as is.

Some 4,000 hectares or 10,000 acres of the lands, or 15 per cent of the total portfolio, is nonagricultural. By going through the local planning process, OLC can increase the value of these lands prior to selling them. Another 133 hectares or 330 acres, representing one per cent of the total, is in an advanced state of development and is ready for sale. A further 200 hectares or 500 acres, held in partnership with the federal government, is also in an advanced stage of development and ready for sale.

In addition, some 800 hectares or 2,000 acres, which are owned in partnership with the federal government, will be sold after obtaining further planning approvals. Several criteria have been adopted to ensure that OLC disposes of the lands in a planned and businesslike manner. In any sale program, OLC must be recognized, on the one hand, as a good corporate player at the community level and, on the other hand, as a prudent agent for the taxpayers of Ontario who want to realize a fair return on their investments.

With this in mind, we made the following recommendations, which were approved by cabinet in March 1986: First, in the sale of large land holdings, OLC must not affect significantly the market value of privately held land in a community. In other words, lands will be sold at a pace that is consistent with local market conditions. This is particularly important in the case of the large provincial land banks in the Nanticoke and South Cayuga areas of southwestern Ontario. I will describe our sale plan for Nanticoke and South Cayuga later in my remarks.

OLC will go through the normal local planning process to change land use designations on the 10,000 acres that have development potential. With appropriate land use, the lands will be more attractive to potential purchasers. This means increased revenues for the province at little additional cost. It is important to point out to members of this committee that OLC, like any other developer, follows the regular planning procedures. It does not have, nor does it seek, special advantages over private developers.

The interest and concerns of other levels of government will be considered in the disposition plan. Changes in our plans to develop or sell land are being disclosed and discussed with our federal partner, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp., where appropriate, and with the municipalities in which the lands are situated. The lands will be marketed in a way that maximizes, wherever possible, broader provincial objectives, including industrial promotion, employment, agriculture and, of course, housing.

When we announced our assured housing strategy, one of its major components was to promote the use of government lands for rental housing. In that regard, a special committee of senior government officials has been formed to identify provincial land that could be used for rental housing and to review proposals for the development of rental housing on government lands. The rental housing utilization of lands committee, or RHUL, is chaired by the Deputy Minister of Housing, Ward Cornell. The committee includes deputy minister-level representatives of the Ministry of Government Services and the Management Board of Cabinet secretariat, as well as the assistant deputy minister responsible for the Ontario Land Corp., Robert Riggs.

Reporting to that senior committee is a working committee of staff from my ministry and the Ministry of Government Services. The aims of the working committee are to identify and recommend provincial lands that could be developed for Ministry of Housing programs; to establish the current market value of these lands; to take them through the local planning and development process and make them suitable for rental housing; and, finally, to market them.

The work of the committee has been progressing very well. The provincial lands in Lindsay, Brockville, London, Etobicoke, the great city of Scarborough, Hamilton, Pembroke and Peterborough have been identified for potential use for rental housing programs. In addition, a tender call has just been issued for the sale and conversion to housing of Victoria College in Cobourg, which has been vacant for several years. Staff in my ministry have been working with the ministries of Government Services, Citizenship and Culture, and Energy to preserve this historic building in a new and useful form. The recent sale of land in Cambridge to Toyota is an example of what we are trying to do. The sale will boost industrial development, create thousands of jobs in the Waterloo region and generate spinoff benefits for the local economy. In addition, over the past year, Ontario Land Corp. has concluded sales of land in Colborne, Cobourg, Hamilton and Nanticoke for nonprofit housing developments.

1720

On a broader front, my associate the acting Minister of Government Services (Mr. Conway) announced last September that Professor Eli Comay of York University has been engaged to look at a number of sites in Metro Toronto and area. This study would look at lands owned by this ministry and other ministries to determine what lands could be made available for development for housing and other provincial uses and for private development. Some 20 sites are now being studied with regard to location, zoning, suitability and municipal issues. We hope this study will be completed within the next several months.

We are taking a comprehensive approach on this issue, and staff of my ministry are meeting with federal officials to determine what opportunities exist related to federal land holdings.

I mentioned the large land banks in Nanticoke and Cayuga within the region of Haldimand-Norfolk in southwestern Ontario and I said that OLC would not conduct a sale program that would have the effect of depressing the market in local communities. As such, the corporation has adopted a special land sale process in Nanticoke and South Cayuga which I would like to outline for the members of the committee.

The lands in Cayuga and Nanticoke are extensive, some 9,300 hectares, 23,000 acres in all. As the members will recall, these two land banks were purchased by the previous government in the late 1960s and early 1970s. At that time, there was reason to believe -- I hope -- that the population of southwestern Ontario would increase rapidly as a result of booming industrial development on the north shore of Lake Erie. Industrial development came, but it did not boom for a variety of reasons, most of them economic.

The growth in the Haldimand-Norfolk region has been slow over the past several years. Development began in Townsend within the city of Nanticoke, and what was eventually intended to be a town of some 40,000 residents is now a community of 400. That is one per cent of the original estimated size.

Given the continued slow growth of the Haldimand-Norfolk region, the government does not anticipate rapid growth in Townsend, nor do we expect to see Cayuga needed for development. As a result, some of the lands in the Townsend area are surplus to the government needs and so too is virtually all the land in South Cayuga land bank.

Both these land banks are simply too large to put on the market at one time. We have to consider the interests of farmers and other property owners living in the area whose investment in their lands would suffer from the rapid sale of large land banks.

I said that OLC will not disrupt the local market nor will we sell the land below its highest and best value to the taxpayers of Ontario. However, OLC intends to sell a significant portion -- up to 50 per cent -- of these lands within the next five years.

I mentioned earlier that one of the criteria in the five-year accelerated land sale program was to consider the concerns of other levels of government. In the case of Nanticoke and South Cayuga, the input and assistance of local and regional officials is vital to the effectiveness of the land sale process. It must cause minimal impact on the community at large. To that end, OLC has set up two local advisory committees, one for the Nanticoke lands and one for the Cayuga lands, to co-ordinate the ideas, knowledge and responsibilities of all the agencies with an interest in the land disposition process.

Each of the two committees includes a representative from the regional municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk; local councillors; a representative from the Ministry of Government Services, which is responsible for managing the lands; and staff of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and of the local federation of agriculture, as well as staff from the Ontario Land Corp. These committees meet regularly to review the land sale process. I am confident that by involving more local representation in our sale programs, we will give full consideration to the local interests and local concerns.

All tenants currently farming the lands have been fully informed of the land sale plan and are being offered the opportunity to purchase the lands they are currently leasing. Should any tenant not wish to purchase, the current lease will be honoured.

There are two major land holdings that are not included as part of the accelerated disposition plan: the Townsend community and the North Pickering land assembly beside the wonderful city of Scarborough.

As for Townsend, an interministerial committee was set up to review the project, and recommendations are currently being developed for consideration by cabinet. I was encouraged to see in the media that the local residents of Townsend have developed a strong sense of community spirit living in Townsend. There is no question that although the residents do not have all the shopping and educational facilities that are available in urban centres, Townsend is seen by its residents as a comfortable community for families as well as for seniors. Over the past year, a new private nonprofit housing project for families and seniors has been built in Townsend. I hope my honourable critic will observe that.

In addition, Cuddy Farms is constructing a new $4-million poultry hatchery operation in Townsend, creating some 25 additional jobs. Also located in Townsend is a new senior citizen nonprofit building, a regional administration building and a village commercial centre. Services are also being put in for the construction of the Nanticoke municipal administration building. Things are happening there.

Although the Haldimand-Norfolk region as a whole is experiencing slower growth than had been anticipated, there are some development activities, and the Townsend community has been one of the beneficiaries.

I will now turn to the North Pickering site, which has 8,160 hectares, or 20,400 acres. The North Pickering land assembly is a special case. As such, it will be the subject of a separate review by an interministerial committee. There are several reasons for this.

First, the land assembly extends across the boundaries of three local municipalities and three regional municipalities: Markham in the region of York, Scarborough in Metro Toronto and Pickering in the region of Durham. Any plans for North Pickering must take into account the public planning process in all six local and regional governments.

Second, located immediately adjacent to Metro Toronto to the east, this land assembly has enormous investment potential. It is likely the largest single piece of undeveloped land in the greater Toronto region. It is exceptionally well serviced by GO train, Highway 401, Highway 7 -- which may become a major Highway 407 -- and it is also well serviced by the York-Durham sewer system.

1730

The eastern portion of the North Pickering assembly south of Highway 7 and north of Highway 401 contains 2,732 hectares or 6,750 acres of land known as Seaton that has been designated for urban development in the official plan of Durham. The western portion of the lands located between West Duffin Creek and the Little Rouge has been designated for agricultural use.

With development occurring immediately to the south in Pickering, with almost no vacant land left in Scarborough and with record urban development taking place in Markham, the lands owned by the province in North Pickering are becoming extremely valuable. As the members of this committee will appreciate, the North Pickering land assembly must be carefully examined and evaluated before any disposition plan is put in place.

I would like to discuss another major policy change affecting Ontario Mortgage Corp. In his October 1985 budget, the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) indicated that a large number of the corporation's mortgage loans were made with terms and conditions not commonly prevailing in today's market. He estimated that the province would recover $37 million less than its outstanding advance. As a result, the recorded value of the advance was being reduced and OMC would dispose of the mortgages in a planned and businesslike manner. I will describe briefly the plan of action taken by the corporation as a result of this announcement.

As the Treasurer said, the mortgage loans were made with terms and conditions not prevailing in today's market. The mortgages were open, so that mortgagers could pay off any amount of the principal at any time during the term of the mortgage with no interest penalty. As part of the sale plan, OMC first notified its mortgagers by letter of the plan to sell the mortgages. The letter explained the sales process and advised them that upon renewal their mortgage repayment and discharge conditions would be changed to make them more consistent with those offered by other mortgage-lending institutions. Once all the 13,000 mortgagers were notified, an advertisement was placed in the financial press and letters were sent to Canadian lending institutions inviting interest in the purchase of the first $110-million package of first mortgages.

The sale process was conducted by open tender. A common briefing session was held with representatives from lending institutions that had indicated an interest in bidding on the package. The successful bidder on the first package was Morguard Trust Co. On the second package, it was the Bank of Montreal.

We now have initiated a sale plan on the long-term mortgage portfolio that is valued at $134 million. Letters will be sent to all 7,000 of these mortgagers to notify them of our intention to sell their mortgages. The interest rates of these mortgages are generally well below current market rates since they were lent in the early and mid-1970s as part of the provincial housing programs in effect at the time. These programs were targeted with families who otherwise might not have been able to afford a home of their own.

The interest rates on some of these mortgages are as low as eight per cent. We are aware, therefore, that they will be purchased by another lending institution only at a discount. Therefore, in fairness to our mortgagers, we have decided to offer them the first opportunity to purchase their mortgages at a discount. Should they not wish to purchase at the discounted rate, only then would their mortgages be offered through a sale plan to other mortgage lending institutions.

The Ontario Mortgage Corp. proposes to continue its mortgage sale program over the next two years. At that time it is expected that the mortgage portfolio, consisting of some $240 million in mortgages, will be sold.

The accelerated disposition plan for Ontario Land Corp. land and the sale of OMC's mortgage portfolio have taken place in recent months. Concurrent with these two important policy changes is a major organizational change to merge the real estate wing with the accommodation group of the Ministry of Government Services.

The purpose of this merger is to provide a focus within the government for the management and disposition of provincially owned lands. The consolidation will promote greater efficiency in the management of provincial property holdings by combining the efforts of those who work in the area of government real estate. The real estate wing provides administrative support to the OLC and to its subsidiary the OMC, which administers the mortgages on the various government programs.

The accommodation group at MGS provides real estate and accommodation services for provincial ministries and agencies, including property development and management.

As part of the merger, a comprehensive strategy has been developed called the portfolio strategy. It has three objectives: first, to meet the program needs of provincial ministries; second, to support the government's social and economic goals, especially in the area of housing; and third, to maximize provincial revenues through the sale of surplus lands wherever it is appropriate.

Robert Riggs, assistant deputy minister of real estate and chief executive officer of the Ontario Land Corp., has been appointed assistant deputy minister of the Ministry of Government Services while retaining his responsibility with the Ontario Land Corp. All I can say is that MGS knows talent when it sees talent; it took away a good civil servant. He has not been lost; he is still working with us.

An implementation steering committee is supervising the merger and is recommending structures and processes to streamline the new organization. The relocation of staff from the Ministry of Housing to the Ministry of Government Services will occur over the next 18 months.

Those are my opening remarks on this vote.

Mr. Philip: I have a few questions based on the minister's opening statement. I am not completely clear about the interrelationship now of his ministry and the Ministry of Government Services vis-à-vis the leasing of properties for government use. Would the minister clarify that? Is it my understanding that the acting Minister of Government Services (Mr. Conway) still has complete control over the leasing of properties?

Hon. Mr. Curling: There is no responsibility from MGS to the Minister of Housing. Yes, they still have responsibility for leasing.

1740

Mr. Philip: If they are doing large inventory surveys at the present time, what is the interaction between the kind of uses you would wish to apply to already owned government lands and those of the Ministry of Government Services?

Hon. Mr. Curling: If I understand the question properly, we try to use all lands to facilitate my housing program, if it can be done, for building affordable rental housing. The member asks me what is the use. If I understand his question properly, it is to make sure we can use those lands, where appropriate, to bring affordable rental housing on the market.

Mr. Philip: Where there are interlocking and overlapping uses, such as in the use or the sale of properties that are surplus, which ministry will have the lead and the chief say in those instances of surplus properties?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I have mentioned the rental housing utilization of land, which is chaired by the Deputy Minister of Housing, Ward Cornell. It is not a matter of who will have the lead and the first say, but of how it can best be utilized; whether it should be agricultural use, whether it should be sold or whether it should be for housing. I think it will be used at the best discretion of the committee.

Mr. Philip: The minister has not answered my question. If I may back up a step, there is an inventory right now of government properties. At some point, all of us will be able to know what properties, be they vacant land or buildings, are owned by the Ontario government. Is that not correct?

At that point, then, surely there has to be some lead ministry that decides what land is surplus, what are the criteria for selling it and what can be used for mixed purposes. It could be mixed office and residential, in which case the Ontario Housing Corp. could become involved, or it could be other forms of nonprofit use, along with government offices or other facilities.

Who acts as the lead minister to co-ordinate all of this once we have the survey done and how do you plug into that lead ministry?

Hon. Mr. Curling: The Ministry of Government Services is the lead ministry in that sense. I go back to the point I was making about the committee on the utilization of land for rental housing. We could have an input on how we could utilize those lands that are available, but the Ministry of Government Services is the lead ministry in that regard.

Mr. Philip: The auditor has been extremely critical of the way in which surplus lands are being sold by the Ministry of Government Services, by the way in which the real estate agents were chosen and, indeed, by the fact that in some instances, such as the University Avenue properties, land was sold prior to taking certain actions such as a rezoning to higher density where it would get a higher buck for the taxpayer.

What has your ministry learned from the experiences and mistakes of the Ministry of Government Services and what safeguards will you put in to ensure you will not make the same mistakes MGS has made over the years in selling off properties?

Hon. Mr. Curling: Of course, we learn from mistakes and what was pointed out in the auditor's report as a reflection on the activity within the Ministry of Government Services. The committee that is set forth here, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, will help us to be careful in the way we will go about disposing of government land and being sensitive to the community, making sure we get the best price for the taxpayers' investment. What we saw in the auditor's comments on MGS will be a lesson to us.

Mr. Philip: These comments are so general that they are completely incomprehensible unless the minister can be more specific and give us some examples. For example, if I look at page 9 of your statement, I find one of the objectives is, "To identify and recommend provincial lands that could be developed for Ministry of Housing programs." Further down, one of your objectives is to market them. How do you develop them for your own housing programs and then market them at the same time? It seems that one is a function of selling off surplus property; that is the exact opposite to the development of properties for residential housing.

Hon. Mr. Curling: I do not see a contradiction in it. My responsibility as Minister of Housing is to see that our assured housing policy brings affordable housing to the people of Ontario. Where it can be used with our land to bring that to a specific target area, we will do so. Where we can identify land or prepare land for selling by going through the normal planning process, whether through the commercial sector or the industrial sector, we will dispose of it accordingly. A community is redeveloped by recognizing all its facets, industrial, commercial and residential.

Mr. Philip: When I hear the minister read through this statement and when I see the statements of the various Ministers of Government Services, I get a strange feeling of déjà vu concerning the government's so-called policy -- and I am more than dignifying it by calling it that -- on crown corporations. What the minister is really doing is taking an inventory so he can see what he can sell off. That is the limit of his policy.

What are the minister's criteria for selling off property? Can he give me some specific criteria he uses other than the reduction of the provincial debt or the production of revenue? Can he give me some assurance that he is not playing the same game his government is playing with crown corporations, namely, selling off anything that looks like a winner, such as the Urban Transportation Development Corp., or anything that is saleable, even at a loss, such as Minaki Lodge, which should have been sold years ago and is at last being sold or given away or whatever? He has no policy other than to sell off as much as possible. What are the criteria for selling off the property?

Hon. Mr. Curling: That is not a fair criticism. The land we sold in Windsor, land I mentioned in my remarks about the Toyota company in Cambridge, was for commercial use. We can see what such a development will do for jobs and development in a community. To say it is just a question of disposal without a strategy is rather unfair. There are examples in Cambridge, Windsor and Cobourg -- I can give the member some more names if he wants. My staff can tell him of other areas we have used in a different manner.

Mr. Philip: Is the minister suggesting he has an industrial policy based on his land use policy that he can actually identify, that he can table for us and present to us here so we can understand it, rather than the generalizations and slogans he is throwing around this afternoon?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I mentioned Toyota. I do not think that was general, but specific. I have named some places where we have used land in a different manner rather than selling it off for selling's sake. The member asks whether I have an industrial strategy. I do not have an industrial strategy.

Mr. Philip: That is fairly obvious. Neither does the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil); so this minister is not alone.

Can the minister tell us about the sale of these mortgages? What safeguards has he put into the sale of the mortgages for those persons whom other mortgage companies and private mortgage lenders might consider risky? They might not be risky at the lower interest rate when they were able to obtain these homes with these mortgages, but risky in this economic climate or with a higher interest rate. What is the minister doing to safeguard these people so that as a result of the sale of the mortgages, they will not be placed in a position where they may lose their homes under the new lenders or indeed that the new lenders may not wish to look at them when the mortgages come up for renewal?

1750

Hon. Mr. Curling: The long-term mortgages are fixed. That safeguard is put in there. When people who were purchasing the mortgages or who had mortgages with us went over to the other mortgage company -- these mortgages are for 30 or 35 years. I think that is quite a good safeguard, that they are buying mortgages for that duration.

Mr. Philip: People who participated in the home ownership made easy program have come to me and informed me that the Ontario Mortgage Corp. mortgages were sold off, that they had to negotiate with a private lender because the term of the mortgages was such that the renewals had to be agreed on by the private lender, that the private lender made life very difficult for them and that they had to negotiate the renewals. Is the minister saying that this is not the case, that this cannot happen?

Hon. Mr. Curling: Before the mortgages were sold, the people were given the opportunity to buy them at a discounted rate. There are two types of mortgages. I think the renewals are for two years. I will get back to the member in a second. Let me get a proper answer.

We guaranteed the short-term mortgages that were renewed for up to five years. The people buying or renewing those mortgages are protected for five years. I hope that will answer the question the member asked me about what protections are being given to the people buying those mortgages. They renewed on the normal basis and were protected, and then sold.

Mr. Philip: Is the minister telling me no one at this time has to negotiate with a private mortgage holder, be it a corporation or a person, who may not be wishing to renew an OMC mortgage or who may be giving the mortgagee some difficulty because of his present financial situation? Is the minister assuring me I will not be able to produce one, two or 10 cases of people in that situation?

Hon. Mr. Curling: Can the member specify whether he is speaking about a long-term or short-term mortgage?

Mr. Philip: As I understand it, some of the mortgages sold are long-term mortgages and others are short-term mortgages. Obviously, the purpose of the short-term mortgages was to help some people of less affluent means than the minister get into home ownership. That was part of the rationale of the previous government. Is the minister telling me that on at least the short-term mortgages, nobody is facing any difficulty with the private lenders in getting those renewed on the completion of the short term?

Hon. Mr. Curling: As far as I know, we have never had any complaint, and I have not had any cases that are having difficulty that way.

Mr. Philip: I will check my records, but I am pretty sure I have sent the minister a complaint on it.

Since this land banking has been done, is it possible for all MPPs to receive, either from the minister or from the Ministry of Government Services, a list of all land that is available for either rental or sale and the dates on which these are expected to be put on the block?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I could give the member data on all except Pickering. As I have been explaining, Pickering is a special case and I could not give him dates on all those lands that have been sold or rented.

Mr. Philip: Notwithstanding Pickering, let me be specific: if I, as the MPP for Etobicoke, asked the minister for an inventory of all government lands that are going to be either leased or sold in my riding, could it be obtained from him or from the Minister of Government Services?

Hon. Mr. Curling: What can be given to the member is the lands that are available, between me as Minister of Housing and the Minister of Government Services, and declared surplus.

Mr. Philip: Those shown as available would include the designation of whether it was the preference to rent or sell them, I presume. Concerning the minister's statement that he plans to work with regional municipalities, do I take it he has already supplied such lists to every municipality in the province so that, according to the Manual of Administration, the municipalities would have first option, after another provincial government agency, to have first bid on those properties?

Hon. Mr. Curling: It is an ongoing process of consultation. Constant advice and information will be given to the municipalities.

Mr. Chairman: Excuse me. I should draw the members' attention to the clock. Perhaps we can continue next day.

Mr. Philip: Perhaps I can finish this one topic, because it is important. In the past, municipalities such as the city of Etobicoke have expressed grave concern that they have not even been informed when land was being sold and had no opportunity to exercise their option or their right under the Manual of Administration of first refusal after another government ministry.

What is the minister doing to ensure that each municipality knows what lands are available? Could I go to the city of Etobicoke today or tomorrow and have a list of all lands the minister is contemplating selling or leasing?

Mr. Chairman: Perhaps the minister would save his answer for next day. The question is in Hansard. It is time for the committee to rise.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Curling, the committee of supply reported progress.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Curling: I would like to indicate the business of the House for the following week. On Monday, January 19, and Thursday, January 22, in the afternoon, we will consider the estimates of the Ministry of Housing.

On Tuesday and Wednesday, January 19 and 21, we will deal with the following legislation: Bill 150, truck transportation; Bill 151, Ontario Highway Transportation Board; Bill 152, Highway Traffic Amendment Act, divisions to be stacked to 5:45 p.m.; Bill 139, model law; Bill 90, police complaints; Bill 161, courts of justice; Bill 127, Surveyors Act; Bill 186, election finances; second and third reading of Bill Pr7.

On Thursday morning, January 22, we will consider private member's business standing in the names of the member for Humber (Mr. Henderson) and the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip).

The House adjourned at 6:03 p.m.

January 15, 1987

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

FARM TAX REDUCTION PROGRAM

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION

FARM TAX REDUCTION PROGRAM

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION

AFTERNOON SITTING

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

DAY CARE

SOLICITOR GENERAL'S REMARK

RECOGNITION OF SENIOR CITIZEN

SOLICITOR GENERAL'S REMARK

SCHOOL BOARDS

DRIVER EXAMINATIONS

YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

CREDIT CARD

RESPONSE

CREDIT CARD

VISITOR

MEMBER'S ANNIVERSARY

ORAL QUESTIONS

GASOLINE TAX

CREDIT CARD

CHILDREN'S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

DAY CARE

LOCATION OF FEDERAL AGENCY

PLANT SHUTDOWNS

EDUCATION FUNDING

PENSION FUNDS

ONTARIO INSTITUTE FOR STUDIES IN EDUCATION

YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT

FARM TAX REDUCTION PROGRAM

UNIVERSITY FUNDING

AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION PROGRAMS

SALE OF UNREGISTERED HOMES

LOCATION OF FEDERAL AGENCIES

ATTENDANCE OF MINISTER

PETITIONS

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

CONTROL OF SMOKING

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

RETAIL BUSINESS HOLIDAYS AMENDMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF HOUSING (CONTINUED)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE