Hansard Transcript 1993-Oct-06 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I was recently informed that the Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation is considering the option of amalgamating Ontario Library Service-North and the southern Ontario library system to form a single agency.

The two jurisdictions have very little in common. The south has all the advantages of population base, ease of travel access, a plethora of libraries and other related institutions. Northern Ontario libraries are very few in number and act as a lifeline to culture, knowledge, recreation and study.

The Ontario library system developed from the library cooperatives. These were grass-roots developed and aimed at helping address differences between northern and southern Ontario libraries. OLS-North is governed by a board elected in the north and responsible to the north. It is designed for the north and the staff is located in northern Ontario. It is very familiar with the north and its libraries.

OLS-North offers a variety of services not offered by the southern system, and it would be devastating to lose this support base. It offers county-type services, library services to unorganized areas and a professional advisory service to library boards and staff. It also offers annual training conferences, regular workshops and northern Ontario cataloguing services.

The NDP government is planning to amalgamate the two systems, therefore destroying the unique nature of OLS-North. If this amalgamation is allowed to go forward, geography and demography would dictate a south-dominated system and a structure for a province-wide body that would also suppose a southern location for the headquarters and administration.

I would like to ask the minister responsible to review this matter and to make sure that there is appropriate consultation and input from northern Ontario libraries and that the concerns of the north be addressed before this matter proceeds any further.

ORILLIA JAZZ FESTIVAL

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I would like to take this opportunity to invite everyone to a musical extravaganza in the Sunshine City. It's the third annual Orillia Jazz Festival and it's from October 21 to October 24.

Organizers are expecting more than 5,000 people from as far away as New York and Montreal to converge on the Sunshine City for what is fast becoming one of the top jazz festivals in North America. Twenty-four bands will be performing at 19 different venues in Orillia this year, including Sounds of the Caribbean, the Mariposa Jazz Band, the Oliver Jones Trio from Montreal and Toronto's Moe Koffman. Jazz is a form of American music developed especially from ragtime and blues.

Brunches, concerts, Cajun cooking and plenty of jazz will be featured prominently on the menu of the third annual Orillia Jazz Festival.

I want to thank the Royal Bank, Jim Wilson's Chevrolet and a group of individuals who form Friends of Jazz for their strong sponsorship. There are many people who sponsor this, and it's those volunteers and the businesses that really are the backbone of this whole festival.

The $4 festival passport provides an official program, a ballot for a grand prize draw for a trip for two to New Orleans, and admission to the opening ceremonies. More information can be obtained by calling (705) 326-8687.

And, Mr Speaker, the Elmvale Fall Fair is on this Thanksgiving weekend in the village of Elmvale.

VIOLENCE IN BOSNIA-HERCEGOVINA

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): Later today I will be presenting a petition on behalf of the education and public awareness committee of the Strathroy Women's Rural Resource Centre and concerned women and men in the riding of Middlesex.

The people of Middlesex ask us, the members of the Legislature of Ontario, to speak out against the systematic rape, beating, abuse or murder of more than 20,000 women and female children in Bosnia-Hercegovina. These inhuman atrocities, done in the name of ethnic cleansing, are intolerable. We have an obligation to state very clearly that the violation of women and children will not be tolerated.

The women and men of my constituency have joined with people around the world in a letter-writing campaign to Serbian, Croatian and Muslim leaders to stop the violence. They ask that we as legislators petition the United Nations to review the actions of all those who perpetrate such violence and implement policies and procedures to stop the abuse.

We must send a message to the women and girls of Bosnia that they are not alone, that we care, that we understand their pain and sorrow and that we wish to reach out in support, love and respect.

PARAMEDIC SERVICES

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I rise today to again bring to the attention of the House the fact that the residents of Ottawa-Carleton are denied full paramedic emergency services while the cities of Toronto, Oshawa and Hamilton have had access to these services, some for over 10 years.

Ambulance attendants in Ottawa-Carleton are lacking in training in advanced life-support skills such as starting an intravenous to give medication and fluids and inserting a tube to help patients breathe. As a result, we all know, heart attack victims in Ottawa-Carleton have a survival rate of 2.4%, as compared to 20% to 25% in many other Canadian cities.

As the Premier stated in this chamber yesterday, it "certainly isn't acceptable...to say to any patient in this province that any financial consideration would be a deterrent to their receiving what is medically necessary care."

I urge the Minister of Health to take the advice of her Premier and the 20,000 residents of Ottawa-Carleton who have signed a petition demanding equal access to paramedic services for our community. Madam Minister, your positive response will ensure that precious lives now needlessly lost will be saved.

1340

WCB PREMIUMS

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): On behalf of my colleagues in the Ontario Progressive Conservative caucus, I would like to indicate our very serious concerns about the fact that the Workers' Compensation Board is considering imposing a rate increase on homes for the aged in the magnitude of 181%.

While I recognize that a final decision has not been made with respect to these rate increases, it is appalling that the board would even consider such an enormous tax hike. Nursing homes are already staggering under the pressures imposed on them by this government through the social contract cutbacks and the recently introduced service reforms by the Ministry of Health. The proposed rate increase will erode their ability to maintain the level of services which their senior residents require and deserve.

We all recognize that the WCB faces a very serious financial crisis with an unfunded liability in excess of $11.2 billion. However, the board needs to recognize that the problem is not a lack of revenue and that these devastating proposals for rate increases will not solve the problem. The problem that the board has is its total inability to effectively manage the system and its constant expansion of the scope of coverage in compensation.

I urge the Minister of Labour to take immediate action to ensure that the WCB does not proceed with its plan to impose this massive rate hike on homes for the aged.

JOBS ONTARIO CAPITAL

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): Mr Speaker, as you know, Sudbury is the jewel of northern Ontario, and in our city we have about 38 lakes, one of which is in the middle of the city. It's hard to believe that in this day and age, at one end down by the Sudbury Algoma Hospital section we have homes in that section around Ramsey Lake where they are still on septic beds. Last Friday afternoon I was very pleased, on behalf of Jobs Ontario Capital and the Ministry of Environment and Energy, to present the region of Sudbury with a cheque for a little over $2 million. It was exciting, because of course I've never had a $2-million cheque in my hand before, but these are phases 2 and 3 of replacing water and sewer mains in that area.

What is especially important for me and for the rest of the city, because the other residents also did exceedingly well -- they're building an 8-million-gallon reservoir -- and for the residents of Moonglo subdivision and those in the Lockerby area, their water pressure problems are going to be resolved upon completion of construction. I was extremely happy to work together with the region, the Ministry of Environment and Energy and the Jobs Ontario Capital fund, and working together we're keeping jobs together and we're enhancing the quality of life. What can be said is that that is what it's all about and that is what this government is trying to do.

LEADER OF THE THIRD PARTY

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Yesterday, I made a statement regarding some of the new friends that Mike Harris made over last summer. Today, I'd like to add Helle Hulgaard to the list of new friends that the leader of the Tories tried to make this past summer.

I'm sure the people who are here today will remember that day in August of this last summer when Mike Harris called a news conference to introduce Ms Hulgaard. It seemed that Mike was supporting Helle, a single mother who was quitting her job because she believed she would be better off on welfare. But Mike also lost some old friends because of his actions. I'd like to quote from a letter that the leader of the Liberal opposition, Lyn McLeod, received from one of Mike's old friends:

"I am a member of the Progressive Conservative Party. However, I am not pleased with their activity in the Windsor area and am not pleased with a number of their issues and platforms, the worst of which was Mike Harris 'endorsing' the use of the welfare system. Although I feel that the welfare system needs a total overhaul, I do not believe that Mr Harris acted in the best interest of the people of Ontario, especially the working people like myself, by allowing himself to support her."

By his crass behaviour, Mike Harris gave a slap in the face to Ontario's unemployed, people who want to work. I believe it would be more productive if Mike Harris directed his efforts to help people get off welfare and help them find the jobs they so desperately want.

EVA'S PLACE

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): On September 23 I had the pleasure of participating in the ground-breaking ceremony for Eva's Place-North York Emergency Home for Youth.

Given these difficult and uncertain economic times, it was wonderful to be included in the ceremony of hope focusing on the protection and security of our young people.

I would like to recognize the thousands of person-hours that volunteers invested in planning and lobbying to bring this project to fruition.

I commend the efforts of both the current and past members of the board of directors of Eva's Place and to the residents of North York for having the vision to provide a youth shelter whose mission is to provide a safe haven for the increasing number of our youth who suffer from abusive or intolerable family situations.

It was good to see one of York Mills's newest residents taking such an interest in our youth. The decision of Paul Molitor and his wife Linda to become the spokespeople for Eva's Place indicate that he's not only an MVP for the Blue Jays but he's also an MVP with the youth in York Mills.

Eva's Place will serve the youth of North York and other municipalities in Metro Toronto for years to come, providing essential services, crisis counselling and life skills training for youth in need.

Eva's Place will improve the quality of life for countless youths. This is an investment in the future of the country.

NORA MCCULLOUGH

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): The community of Guelph and the arts community of Canada suffered a loss on August 10 when Nora McCullough died at her home in Guelph. She was 90 years old.

Ms McCullough graduated from the Ontario College of Art in 1925 and her career began at the Art Gallery of Ontario. In the late 1930s she was assistant to Arthur Lismer, one of the original Group of Seven artists. In 1938 she went to South Africa to continue working with the children's art centres Lismer had established in Pretoria and Cape Town. She became inspector of art education in the Cape Town provinces.

When she returned to Canada, Ms McCullough worked for the National Gallery of Canada in Prince Edward Island arranging tours and exhibits and setting up art classes for children in Charlottetown. She also worked on behalf of the National Gallery in Quebec and northern Ontario.

She was founding executive secretary for the Saskatchewan Arts Board from 1947 to 1956, working tirelessly to promote interest in the arts, in particular in the rural areas. From 1956 to 1958, she travelled in Italy and France studying traditional handcrafts.

She became western Canada liaison officer for the National Gallery of Canada between 1958 and 1968, assembling major exhibitions, circulating gallery shows and lecturing.

Over the years Ms McCullough assembled a large private art collection and usually gave friends and visitors to her home an impromptu tour and a lecture. She has donated works of Canadian artists to public galleries. I know that many people throughout her life were touched by Ms McCullough and they will join with us in mourning the loss of Nora.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

EARTHQUAKE IN INDIA

Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister of Citizenship and Minister Responsible for Human Rights, Disability Issues, Seniors' Issues and Race Relations): Mr Speaker, I wonder if you would request of the House that we have a moment's silence on the earthquake in India.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed. I invite all members and all visitors who are in our gallery to please rise and observe a moment of silence for the earthquake victims in India.

The House observed a moment's silence.

The Speaker: You may be seated.

Hon Ms Ziemba: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, and also thank you very much to the House for your expression.

I rise today to express on behalf of the government of Ontario sympathy and concern for the people of the province of Maharashtra in India over the earthquake and the resulting casualties, including loss of life. Initial reports put the number of deaths in the tens of thousands with many more injured or left homeless by this disaster.

Ontario's South Asian community is understandably worried about the safety and welfare of family and friends. Our thoughts are with them in this troubled time.

I would like to mention that in our gallery today is the consul general of India, Mr Mennon, who I hope will take back to his community our expression of sympathy and concern.

1350

I met with Mr Mennon, the consul general, and members of the Indian community on Monday to personally express my concern, as well as my admiration, for the way the South Asian community has rallied together to organize relief efforts to minimize the suffering in the areas ravaged by the earthquake.

The consul general is in daily contact with the government of India. The province of Maharashtra responded quickly and efficiently in its rescue efforts.

Ontarians have always been at the forefront of providing humanitarian aid in the wake of such tragedies. Already volunteers spearheaded by the South Asian community have collected essential items that are currently in short supply. These items include blankets, clothing -- especially children's clothing -- food, building supplies and medical supplies. A telethon was held over the weekend and thousands of dollars were raised from the South Asian community, and of course further donations are most welcome.

On behalf of the government of Ontario, I would like to say to Mr Mennon and to the members of the community that we are pleased to announce that the government of Ontario is contributing $100,000 to the relief effort. We will continue to keep in close touch with the South Asian community through your office, Consul General, and I hope that we can assist in whatever way possible. Thank you very much for joining us today.

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): To Minister Ziemba, Minister of Citizenship, I want to respond on behalf of our party and say that those of the Liberal caucus and our friends and families would also join in expressing our concern and sympathy. So many of the people who reside in our communities have families and friends who are touched by this tragedy.

It seems to me that as these types of events are literally shared with us in our living rooms we sometimes become a little bit desensitized to them. From time to time someone or something that is symbolic rises to the forefront and cuts through some of the callousness that I think our world, unhappily, has developed over the past number of years. I watched with interest as a child of about a year and half of age was pulled miraculously from the rubble. It was symbolic of the human spirit and will to live and to survive.

God willing, perhaps there are many others who may be yet alive as the efforts are undertaken. Indeed, for those who are left injured, left homeless and without the means of life support as people across this province, and indeed around the world, respond, I think it fitting that the government of Ontario join with the many citizens of this province in sharing the responsibilities that we have, being a province that, with all of its difficulties, is so richly blessed in many ways.

I too want to acknowledge in the gallery today the presence of Dr Ubale, who is a former commissioner with the Ontario Human Rights Commission and who is working together with NGOs -- non-government organizations -- as they coordinate their relief effort for the victims and families of the victims overseas of this tragic earthquake.

As citizens respond, they should be aware of the fact that there are hotlines set up that they can get in contact with and help. There are NGOs. I'm sure that all members would be willing to assist people in their communities to reach out and help in whatever way they can. There are warehouses being set up in Scarborough for the east end of our city and in Mississauga for the west end under the leadership of Consul General Mennon and Dr Ubale.

I would urge citizens in this province to consider how, in whatever small measure, they might be able to respond. I think that if everybody does a little bit, a lot can be accomplished.

Again, on behalf of my colleagues in the Ontario Liberal Party, in the caucus of the official opposition and my leader, the honourable Lyn McLeod, we wish to express our concerns and our sympathies for the families affected, and trust that the efforts of all Ontarians will in some small measure bring a sense of relief and hope for those who remain alive.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I too want to express my sincere feeling about the tragedy that is happening in India. I also know how painful it is to Dr Ubale and the consul general, who have worked ardently in many of these tragic circumstance. In Scarborough North there are a tremendous number of Indians who have families who have been affected by this. I can't express the pain that they have told me how they felt about this.

Of course, as my colleague stated, we get rather complacent at times and we sit at home and watch these tragedies day by day in different parts of the world and may be detached from them. I urge everyone in Canada, wherever you are, to give what you can, because this situation of almost 30,000 people -- lives that have been destroyed -- is as much as some islands in the West Indies that have been wiped out completely.

I want to say to you that with the pain that you're feeling today, both you and many of the families in Ontario, we are behind you in a very tangible way. I want to really commend the government for responding in such a manner.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): To the consul general, Mr Mennon, and to Dr Ubale, on behalf of our leader, Mr Harris, the member for Nipissing, and the members of the PC caucus, we share in the government's statement today and that of the Liberals in expressing our deep concern for this horrible tragedy in India.

Without warning and without time to say goodbye, this was a tragedy that befell tens of thousands of innocent, sleeping people in the pre-dawn earthquake that ripped through a remote region of western India. An earthquake measuring 6.4 on the Richter scale crept up on the sleeping villages and swallowed entire families. In a matter of moments, people much like ourselves were taken for ever. For those who remain life will never be the same.

As the death toll mounts, the hope for survivors dims, and yet media accounts have shown that hope can still prevail as rescue workers continue to unearth survivors.

In cases of extreme tragedy we search for answers to questions such as, "Why did this have to happen?" Unfortunately, nature operates on its own. Even though the question of why cannot be answered, we as part of a global community can still respond. I am encouraged by the outpouring of compassion and donations from residents in our communities all across Ontario.

India may be thousands of miles away, yet in Ontario we are responding with donations of goods and money as if the earthquake had struck here. Our response as a province closes the geographic distance, and as such, India doesn't seem so far away.

We can share in the grief of the many families living in Ontario who have lost loved ones in this devastating quake. We can rejoice when survivors are found, yet we can feel the anxiety of these people as they await the news of a missing relative found either buried in the rubble or in the crowds of grieving survivors. We can offer our prayers to those who were so suddenly taken from their families. This earthquake was a tragedy without warning.

To all those families from India living in Ontario, may they please know that our caucus colleagues, and indeed this Legislature, share in your grief. We are pleased as well that the Ontario government has seen fit to assist with this contribution and we sincerely hope that people across Ontario will continue to call Dr Ubale and the wonderful group that is trying its best by calling (416) 494-7699.

1400

ORAL QUESTIONS

CANCER TREATMENT

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Yesterday we had assurances from the Premier that anyone receiving bone marrow transplants or anyone being given medically necessary treatments would not face any financial deterrents to receiving that care. You came out in the scrum afterwards and indicated that you didn't know where the money was going to come from, probably the hospitals, but I took it that the Ministry of Health and the government of Ontario would not pay the costs of providing medically necessary treatments for bone marrow transplants. I just have the script from the reports in the newspapers.

Minister, can you confirm that no patient in Ontario will face a financial deterrent to receiving medically necessary treatments in this province?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): Yes.

Mr Elston: Thank you very much for that answer. I want to know why it is, then, that the Minister of Health has indicated that Princess Margaret will have to look to research funds and its charitable foundation to fund costs of bone marrow transplants and match searches, as she did yesterday, when she knows full well that the research grant fund is not available for operations funding and when she knows that the charitable foundation's bylaws and regulations prevent the movement of that money from capital programs into operating programs.

Hon Mrs Grier: Let me clarify what the member says he took from what he believes I said in a scrum yesterday. What I said was, "The money must be found." The hospital has a global budget, and we have already contacted it and want to work with it to look at that budget to see where the money can be found to make sure that these procedures continue.

On the larger issue, we are facing a very real problem. We don't have enough people in Canada who have indicated their willingness to donate bone marrow to provide a large enough pool of donors for the people who need it. The price has escalated dramatically around the world, and countries around the world are working together to see how they can deal with that.

For the four cities and I think five or six hospitals in Ontario that provide bone marrow transplants, we have to look at a mechanism or a pool of funding that can cope with the short-term pressure which has happened in the middle of the financial year.

We want to have those discussions. If there are foundation funds, if there are research funds and if there is a way of providing this funding, we need to work on this together with the hospitals and with the ministry to make sure that nobody in this province is denied services that are medically necessary because either the person, the hospital or the ministry doesn't have the money. That's our challenge, and that's what we're working to resolve.

Mr Elston: All I want is a straight answer. I thought I had it in the first answer. Will you confirm today for people like my constituent who are waiting for bone marrow transplants, and for other people who are requiring medically necessary treatments to save them from disease and other things, will you commit unequivocally that the money will come from the province of Ontario to ensure that medically necessary treatment is available without any kind of financial deterrent being put in the way of a patient in this province?

Hon Mrs Grier: All the money for all of our health care system comes from the province of Ontario, all $17 billion of it, and attempting to manage that funding to maintain and preserve our health services is what this government and its efforts to contain our expenditures and manage our health care system are all about. I can unequivocally say that no patient in this province is going to have to pay for medically necessary services provided by a hospital. That is the way it's been, and our commitment is to make sure that that's the way it remains.

BLOOD PRODUCTS FACILITY

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I have another question for the Minister of Health. There's a celebration in the greater Halifax area today because there was an announcement that a multimillion-dollar facility will be built there for the production of blood products. Minister, can you tell us what you and your colleagues did to support the applications of four municipalities from Ontario to be the host site for that particular facility?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): My colleague the Minister of Economic Development and I have been very involved in discussions with respect to the construction of a fractionation plant for blood within Canada. The ministers of health from all of the provinces have set up over the last couple of years the Canadian Blood Agency, which is the customer of the Red Cross for the blood that is collected from volunteers all across this country and then processed into blood products.

The Canadian Blood Agency feels some very real concerns, as do the ministers of health, with respect to the safety and efficiency of our blood supply system. We have just yesterday the federal Minister of Health announcing a national inquiry into the efficiency and management of our blood supply system. The deputy ministers of health established a task force to look at the viability and necessity of a fractionation plant, with instructions to report back by the end of November.

With respect to the announcement by the Red Cross that it is going to open negotiations with the city of Halifax, quite frankly, that's a premature announcement, and I regret that the Red Cross has chosen to move unilaterally without the approval and the concurrence of its only customer, the Canadian Blood Agency.

Mr Elston: What the minister didn't say was that she and the former Minister of Health wrote a letter basically saying that they had no position to take in this regard until the CBA had made its decision, followed by a letter which basically said, "If you have to make a decision, then we think maybe we will support this if the CBA says it's okay."

She, the minister, and this government are members of the CBA, as are the ministers and deputies of the rest of the provinces and the federal government. Why is it that the minister was unable to provide support for the municipalities of Kingston, Barrie, Sudbury and Ottawa, when the Premier of Nova Scotia was able to take time to meet with the proponents personally, to telephone them to attract their attention about how willing Nova Scotia was to host this? Why is it that the economic development minister, Minister Bragg, came to Ottawa to pitch greater Halifax as a great location site for what will be up to 400 jobs? Why is it that in the press statement that was made today, the officials also thanked the Minister of Health for Nova Scotia for being so supportive? Minister, why is it that Nova Scotia pursued this facility, with 400 jobs and the security of blood supply for the entire nation, and you decided that you and your colleagues would sit on the sidelines while the game progressed past salvation?

Hon Mrs Grier: That is not an exact characterization of the situation as it exists. I want to assure the member opposite that both my colleague the Minister of Economic Development and Trade and myself have had numerous conversations with the Red Cross, with the Canadian Blood Agency and with the mayors of cities in Ontario who would like to have a plant, if it is constructed, constructed in Ontario. Our position was perfectly clear.

We believe there are some very real questions that need to be answered about the safety and the efficiency and the management of the blood supply in this country. Just last week, I met with the Canadian Hemophilia Society, which is adamantly opposed to the Red Cross constructing a fractionation plant anywhere in this country. All of the ministers of health shared that concern and asked the task force of deputies to report back by the end of November on whether -- let me quote the terms of reference -- it in fact made sense to review "to investigate the technological and financial risks associated with blood fractionation."

I sincerely regret for the sake of Ontario cities, which need a plant if a plant is going to built, that the Canadian Red Cross, which is dependent upon the voluntary donations of more people in Ontario than in the Maritime provinces, I think I can say, chose to act so quickly and to take this risk before all the answers were in about whether in fact for the health of the people of Canada this kind of plant makes sense.

Mr Elston: She raises a prospect that there are some problems with this project going ahead, one of them being what she describes as "risks." But I've been led to believe by information I've received that the CBA now indicates that some of its concerns have been overcome, with the exception of one, perhaps, and this was a big concern expressed by yourself and the previous Minister of Health, which is: "This project is only going to be technologically viable for the next 17 years anyway, so we don't really have to pitch for it. Who cares if there are 400 jobs created over the next 10 years? The technology will be outdated."

I understand that the proponents, Miles and Red Cross, have clearly indicated that for the next two decades at least, this technology will not only be viable but will be the way in which supplies are made available to the people who require them in this country.

1410

Minister, this started in about April 1992. Why is it that your letters, of very tentative support, begin only in August and are capped by a letter which says, under the signature of the Minister of Economic Development and Trade, that "If the CBA approves it, I will go and see if I can get cabinet support for this"? Minister, why so tentative a position on your part when probably more than 400 jobs, direct and indirect, have been lost to this province at a meeting that was held in Ottawa? Why couldn't you even go and help the municipalities in Ontario make their pitch for this province's interests?

Hon Mrs Grier: As I've been attempting to make clear to the member, the safety of the blood supply is of paramount importance to the people of this province and to the people of this country. The Canadian Blood Agency will be holding a press conference later this afternoon and I know will speak for itself, but when he asks why our support was contingent upon approval by the Canadian Blood Agency -- the Canadian Blood Agency has been created by all of the provinces to manage the blood supply. The management of the blood supply in this country is a cooperative enterprise between the volunteers who donate the blood, the Red Cross which collects it and the Canadian Blood Agency which, through the funding from the provinces, pays for it.

As I said in my first response, I really regret that the Red Cross has moved unilaterally. I think there are a lot of questions yet to be answered and I think those questions will in fact have to be answered before anybody goes to a sod-turning for the plant that was announced yesterday.

NEW WCB HEADQUARTERS

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I understand the Premier is to be here at 2:15 and I'd like to stand down my first question till the Premier comes here to follow up on this matter of 400 jobs for the province of Ontario.

My second question is to the Minister of Labour regarding the WCB. Last week, on September 29, the Provincial Auditor wrote to the Chair of the standing committee on government agencies. In his letter he said: "The draft transcript of the September 15 meeting contains certain testimony given by Mr Brian King, vice-chair of the board, relating to our report made to the standing committee on public accounts on the WCB's new headquarters, which I consider either misleading or factually incorrect."

Minister, have you spoken to Mr King about testimony he gave before a committee that the Provincial Auditor says was either misleading or is factually incorrect? If you have not spoken to him, why not?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): At this point in time, I haven't spoken to Mr King about this issue, and when I have I will relate it back to the member.

Mr Harris: Minister, you obviously must know about it. The Provincial Auditor, the watchdog of the public purse, clearly found the WCB's new ivory tower was not appropriate. On September 7, however, you as minister wrote to Judith Andrew of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and you said, and I quote, "In my view, the auditor's report confirms that the WCB made a sound investment when it decided to relocate its head office to Simcoe Place." End of your quote to Judith Andrew.

Minister, obviously you have bought into everything that Mr King, the NDP head honcho at WCB, has told you and your cabinet and the Premier. Not only, according to the auditor, has he misrepresented the findings of the Provincial Auditor himself, but now so have you by virtue of the letters you're writing based on that information. Do you have absolutely no interest or no sense of what is going on at the WCB, and is it not time for you personally to step in and stop this nonsense that's gone amok?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: If the member across the way thinks I might have absolutely no interest in what's going on at the WCB, then I don't know why I would even respond to him. But let me tell him very clearly that it's probably the chief concern I have within my ministry. We are meeting on it regularly and we've already set in place steps that we think are going to bring about a correction of a situation that's existed at the WCB for a good many years in the province of Ontario.

Mr Harris: Minister, I find it unprecedented that the auditor has written a letter to a standing committee of this Legislature with the allegation that he has made about Mr King and you have done nothing about it. This was discussed this morning in the committee.

It's not the first time, by the way, Minister, that we've had reason to believe Mr King has not been up front about this multimillion-dollar boondoggle. Last January he appeared before the public accounts committee. He told members he had two or three legal opinions that confirmed that the WCB could proceed with this building without your or cabinet's approval. However, to date we have seen one opinion. He has refused to produce any of the other opinions.

At that time, our caucus questioned his statements. We're going back quite some period of time now. However, you used your majority in the committee to block any further questioning and any further discussion of this whole matter on the WCB.

Will you today direct the members of your committee to stop the coverup, to allow the committee to proceed, to bring the auditor back in, and let's get to the bottom of this Brian King and what's going on at WCB with the new building? Will you do that today?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I want to make it clear that I wouldn't begin to entertain the thought of trying to tell a committee of this Legislature what it had to do.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I also want to say that I think it's very unfortunate the kind of charges that are being made here, without any accurate backing up, on Mr King, who is trying to do a job at the board to correct some of the problems we've had for a long time at the WCB.

LEADER OF THE THIRD PARTY

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question for the Treasurer, the Minister of Finance, of Ontario. In the present economic circumstances in Ontario, do you believe it would be appropriate to advise a person who is making, let's say, in excess of $40,000 to quit his or her job and go on welfare?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): That's a very strange question coming from the member for St Catharines. I would simply say to him that I suspect he knows, as other members of this assembly know, that in recent years we've had extremely high case loads in social assistance and the cost to the province is extremely high. I believe it's in the neighbourhood of about $6 billion a year now.

I know some people who receive social assistance, and the ones I know want nothing more than to have the dignity of a decent job; nothing more than that. I can tell you that to counsel anybody otherwise is both economically and socially irresponsible, and if the member for St Catharines knows anybody who's doing that, I wish he would tell me so I personally can have a chat with that irresponsible person.

Mr Bradley: I'm usually tied up with confidentiality in cases of this kind, but the member may have been in his northern Ontario riding of Nickel Belt in late August working hard for his constituents and he may not have been aware of a press conference which was held here in Toronto where Mike Harris, the leader of the Conservative Party, supported Helle Hulgaard, who announced her intention to quit her $41,500 job and go on welfare.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Bradley: My question to the Treasurer is very simple: Would the Treasurer agree with Mike Harris, the leader of the Conservative Party, who supported Ms Hulgaard's decision to quit her job and go on welfare? Would the Treasurer agree with that?

Hon Mr Laughren: I'll try not to be partisan about this, but I really do wonder what has happened to the work ethic in the Tory party. There was a day when the Tory party stood for the work ethic -- dare I even say the Protestant work ethic? -- in this province.

I would simply say that I did hear about it and I was extremely disappointed. I'll repeat what I said before: I think it is truly both socially and economically irresponsible to advise someone to go from a job to social assistance. I repeat that and I hope that before anybody ever considers doing that again, they'll have a personal chat with me.

1420

WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY AGENCY

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): My question is for the Minister of Labour. Minister, according to a letter which was sent to Ontario employers by the Workplace Health and Safety Agency, all employees must complete a questionnaire regarding their joint health and safety committee before September 30, 1993. This arbitrary deadline has been imposed despite the fact that the regulations state that certification training does not have to be completed until April 1995.

The business community is concerned because this questionnaire and its response will affect the length and cost of training. The members of the management advisory committee are now advising their members that they should not complete the questionnaire until they satisfy themselves regarding outstanding questions in the questionnaire by making written requests for clarification from the WHSA.

Will you explain to this House why employers are being forced to meet this unreasonable time line, and will you undertake to put on hold the certification process until all of the outstanding questions of the business community have been worked out to the satisfaction of all the parties concerned?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I'm surprised at the question because there is a board at the agency that is a joint labour-management board and it has agreed upon a certification process which is now under way. It seems to me that the successes also being shown in that process are being credited by both sides, both labour and management.

Mrs Witmer: That's the problem, Mr Minister. You know that the board is not working and you know that this new certification program will not work if the videos that you are presenting are anti-business and anti-management and pro-union.

Many of the problems at the agency stem from the fact that the management vice-chair, Mr McMurdo, does not have the confidence of the members of the business community. The fact that they do not feel he represents their views makes a mockery of the idea that the agency is a cooperative process involving both labour and management.

This lack of support for Mr McMurdo has given the WHSA the reputation as a vehicle for the Ontario Federation of Labour in which management has absolutely no voice, and that's becoming more apparent each day. To make matters worse, it now appears that you intend to reappoint Mr McMurdo to this position despite the fact that people are opposed to his representing them.

Minister, will you agree to appoint a new management vice-chair, one who is chosen through consultation -- a word, I know, that's a stranger to you -- with the business community and one who therefore has the support of the community that he or she is supposed to represent?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I don't have an indication that Mr McMurdo, if this is the person the member is raising the questions about, does not have support from the business community. Some of the top CEOs and business people in Ontario are on the board and have supported the program. I certainly will take a look when the time comes for the reappointments, but I'm not going to take a statement like that from the member across the floor as to what I should do or shouldn't do in terms of any reappointments.

BLOOD PRODUCTS FACILITY

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier. In spite of the fact that your staff suggests you refer this to the minister, I'm very interested in what you knew and what you did and what you did not do, particularly stacked up against five other premiers and Premier Savage of Nova Scotia, with regard to the announcement yesterday that the Red Cross and the Miles corporation just announced a site for a blood fractionation plant in Canada.

Premier, even those in Sudbury and other cities in Ontario, even those across Canada, acknowledge this plant was Ottawa's to lose, given that the head office of the CNIB was there, given that Health and Welfare Canada was there --

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): It's the Red Cross.

Mr Harris: The Red Cross there.

That was acknowledged across this country. It was Ottawa's to lose. The one thing Ottawa did not have was the unqualified support of the government, the minister and the Premier of the province of Ontario.

Can you explain to me, Premier, why Premier Savage from Nova Scotia, on behalf of Halifax, was able to lobby effectively on behalf of his government for Halifax while you did nothing on behalf of the Ontario bid for the city of Ottawa, or for anywhere else in the province of Ontario, to make sure those 400 jobs came here?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I'm going to refer this question where it properly belongs, to the Minister of Health.

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): As I responded in response to earlier questions, with all due respect to the leader of the third party, the question that has to be asked is, does the major customer of such a plant in Canada, in fact the only customer, the Canadian Blood Agency, believe that such a plant should be built? Let me share with him what the Canadian Blood Agency has just said, which is that it rejects the Canadian Red Cross Society's announced plan to build a blood fractionation plant in Halifax, citing serious problems about its implications for the Canadian blood program.

What we have to assure ourselves of first and foremost is, is it in the best interests of the health of the people of this province to have such a plant? In our discussions with Ottawa, with Sudbury, with Barrie, with Kingston, with a number of cities that had either approached or been approached by the Canadian Red Cross, both myself and the Minister of Economic Development made it very clear that our support for them would be total if in fact the Canadian Blood Agency believed that it was in the best interests of the Canadians, the Ontarians, who need the products from such a plant that such a plant be built.

Mr Harris: The Canadian Blood Agency is made up of the governments across Canada. Michael Decter heads this committee. All the other provinces said, "We reject what the agency is saying, and even if there is something, let's make sure we get the plant and then sort out the differences later." That is what is being said. "If a plant's going to be built, let's make sure we get it." Now Halifax has it.

Premier, you were in Baltimore watching the Blue Jays play a nothing series while Premier Savage was on the phone for this decision to be made this Sunday. Your minister wouldn't meet with the Red Cross. You refused to have the meetings to hear their side of the story. Can you now explain why five other premiers felt they should lobby directly for 400 jobs, for this plant, I might add being built at no cost to the taxpayer, a joint venture of the public and private sectors, when you wouldn't even meet with the Red Cross and your minister wouldn't meet with the Red Cross either?

Hon Mrs Grier: Mr Speaker, I hope you will ask the member to apologize to the Premier for those kinds of comments. You might also ask him to correct the record, which is that my deputy, Michael Decter, does not head the Canadian Blood Agency.

What Michael Decter has taken the leadership on, in consultation with other provinces, is a task force that all of the provinces, including the maritime provinces, asked to be established, which would examine the technological and financial risks associated with blood fractionation. If the premiers of the maritime provinces wish to take that risk on behalf of their constituents and the people in their provinces who use the blood supply, it is not a risk that we're prepared to take until we are absolutely sure that such a plant is in the best interests of the people who need it, the haemophiliacs and the residents of this province who donate and subsequently use the products of the blood supply.

Mr Harris: The Premier of Alberta, Ralph Klein, personally flew to Ottawa twice to meet with the Red Cross and get the information directly that the Red Cross was basing it on. Other premiers made sure they met with them, either personally or by phone, in addition to all the ministers. Mayor Holzman of Ottawa said that your inaction reflects "the lack of professionalism, misinformation and distortions of truth and the arrogance of some officials in your government." That's what Mayor Holzman of Ottawa says.

1430

From everything that we can gather, the only reason you refuse to help Ontario bidders is because Michael Decter told you not to. Can you explain to me why all the other provinces and premiers ignored Michael Decter's advice and went ahead and bid for the plant and now Halifax is going to have the 400 jobs?

Hon Mrs Grier: Let me remind the leader of the third party that what was announced yesterday was the Red Cross's intention to negotiate with Halifax to locate a plant there. We are a long way from turning the sod on any fractionation plant in Canada and I can assure the member that if, in fact, it appears that a blood fractionation plant is in the best interests of the health care system of this province, there will be a number of other considerations that will be taken into account before any actual investment is made.

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member for London North and the member for Riverside.

Mr Wiseman: My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. The federal government has announced the sale of 5,100 acres of land that was brutally expropriated in the early 1970s by the federal Liberal government of Canada. These lands contain class 1 farm land, important river valleys and are adjacent to the Rouge park. All these lands are situated on the Oak Ridges moraine. The sale of these lands by the federal Conservative government of today is a callous and politically arrogant abuse of federal power.

Will the minister restate and explain for my constituents and all the people of Ontario who support the Rouge park, good planning and sustainable development the actions that the provincial government will take to protect these constituents and these environmentally sensitive areas?

Hon Howard Hampton (Minister of Natural Resources): The member is quite correct. The federal lands in the Pickering area which border on the Rouge Valley park and on the Oak Ridges moraine -- there are a significant number of environmental interests, agricultural interests and some community interests.

I have indicated to the federal Minister of Transport that Ontario is opposed to the federal government merely selling off these lands. We believe that a plan should be formulated dealing --

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Talk about the lands you guys just sold.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Oriole, please come to order.

Hon Mr Hampton: -- with the environmental interests and the agricultural interests, and we've indicated to the federal government that we are opposed to their plan to simply sell the lands at the highest price. We've indicated to them that we will take the appropriate steps to counter any proposed sale by the federal government.

Mr Wiseman: My supplementary is to the minister and I quote from the Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront, paid for by the taxpayers of Canada in an attempt to bring some logical planning. Commissioner David Crombie says: "After nearly two decades of public ownership, it would seem reasonable to expect that both governments could decide what their future needs are for the properties involved and could work together to plan management or disposal of surplus lands," and these are contained in the recommendations.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Wiseman: Also, the federal government Round Table on the Environment and Economy said: "For consensus to operate, people must abandon command and control patterns of conduct" --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Wiseman: -- "and only if they abandon can there be a kind of interchange among equals that is so necessary in trying to weave sustainable development into the multitude of our activities."

Tell me, Mr Minister, does what the government is doing to these people and to these lands and these environmentally sensitive areas --

The Speaker: Could the member place a question, please.

Mr Wiseman: -- even come close to fulfilling the obligations of their paid-for reports?

Mrs Caplan: Five hundred acres, Floyd. You just sold 173 acres at Whitevale.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Oriole, please come to order.

Mr Wiseman: If it doesn't, what's the point of the federal government even involving themselves in this when they have such a callous disregard for people, for the environment and for the agricultural lands --

The Speaker: Would the member place a question?

Mr Wiseman: -- that they're prepared to put 200 families out on the street at this time --

Interjections.

The Speaker: A point of order? When the House has come to order, then I will entertain the member's point of order.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): Mr Speaker, I cannot hear one word of what is being said over here. I don't know whether you can. With all due respect, I doubt if you can. I would ask that, if the member's going to be allowed to continue, we be allowed to hear him.

The Speaker: Indeed, it was quite difficult to hear the question. I understand that the question has been placed. It would be helpful if all members would resist the temptation to interject, and I would invite the minister to respond to the question.

Hon Mr Hampton: Difficult as it may be, I was able to hear the question over the member for Oriole, although with some difficulty.

What is important to understand is that this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to protect some ecologically important, agriculturally important lands that are very close to the greater Toronto area. I think the fear is that if this opportunity is missed, it will not present itself again.

My colleague the minister responsible for the greater Toronto area and the Minister of Municipal Affairs indicated today that he was prepared to utilize a minister's zoning order to prevent an inappropriate use of these lands should the federal government decide to follow through on its proposal to sell them.

The province of Ontario is determined that those parts of these lands which are suitable for inclusion in the Rouge Valley Park will, within our power, be used for the Rouge Valley Park and that agricultural lands within our power will be protected as well.

BENEFITS FOR OLDER WORKERS

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Last Friday, I was visited by a group of people in my constituency office in Elliot Lake. They brought with them what I consider to be a most astounding document bearing the signature of the Minister of Labour, Bob Mackenzie. It relates to the program for older worker adjustment in this province.

It seems that in December of last year, the Minister of Labour, together with the Minister of Labour for Canada, signed this agreement. This agreement substantially reduces the benefits to workers who will now qualify for the eligibility under this program. These are workers who are between 55 and 65 years of age and stand no reasonable opportunity for employment in their community, and this minister, together with his federal buddy, has reduced the benefits by 30% to 40% to these workers. These workers worked for Denison Mines. At Denison Mines, they had friends laid off just a year ago who will receive benefits substantially higher.

I want to ask this Minister of Labour, what is he going to do for workers in the province of Ontario who find themselves in these circumstances, and why did he sign an agreement which substantially reduced the benefits to these workers?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): The negotiations that have gone on for the best part of a year, I guess, with the federal authorities to try to get them to maintain the funding arrangement, which is 70/30 dollars -- 70 cents federal; 30 cents provincial -- for the older workers' program are ones that finally -- and it's been difficult to maintain the program and keep it. Certainly at anything more than the current price, it would be difficult for Ontario to maintain it.

But one of the things that was agreed upon in the negotiations was that we would try to extend the program; we would try to cover more people. The limit was put of $1,000, a deduction was put there for other pensions they were already receiving and the program was extended so that women could qualify after 13, not 15, years' service because they sometimes were out of the workforce in terms of pregnancy leave provisions.

1440

The moves that were made did reduce the amount that is there for each individual worker but mean that several hundred additional workers in that age category will be able to qualify for the program. We think it was sound business in terms of trying to extend that program.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): This is the same minister who, when he was in opposition and the former government signed an agreement to help these older workers, cried that in those days the benefit package was not enough. It wasn't enough when we were the government, and you are a signature party to an agreement that reduces benefits to older workers by over $300 a month.

We don't understand why you didn't bring it into this House. You signed this document December 17, 1992. You didn't bring it to the attention of the Legislature. You didn't raise any kind of public outcry against the federal government. We have the spectre of Bob Rae and Mike Harris climbing into bed together. Now we've got Marcel Danis and Bob Mackenzie saying, "Move over; we want to come in too." This is an absolute disgrace.

You, sir, supposedly the champion, a former organizer in the Steelworkers --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member place a question, please.

Mr Mahoney: -- supposedly the champion of those people who can least help themselves, have abandoned the older workers in this province. You've signed an agreement with the federal Tories --

The Speaker: Does the member have a question?

Mr Mahoney: -- and it's a disgrace. What do you say to those older workers, Minister, whom you have betrayed in the province of Ontario?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: Quite the contrary. If we can tone down some of the rhetoric across the way, the question we were facing was whether or not we could continue the program and whether or not we could cover more workers in the age category that POWA covers. That's exactly what we did, and quite frankly, given those options, I'm proud to have signed the document.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and concerns the tragic situation of two municipalities in Metropolitan Toronto at war over a property assessment system that was put in place about 40 years ago.

In Scarborough about 30,000 have appealed their assessment because they consider this property assessment to be unfair, inequitable and out of date. As a result of that perception, the city of Scarborough has appealed to increase the assessments of 1,000 homes in the city of Toronto. In retaliation, the city of Toronto has appealed 5,000 assessments within the city of Scarborough to have their assessments increased. Now we've just learned this week that the city of Toronto appeal of the Scarborough residents have been disqualified. But that will not end it. The city of Toronto will take legal action.

My question to you is, when will you assume your responsibility, provide leadership? This mess has to be sorted out. Will you tackle this issue before it gets more out of hand and before more taxpayers' dollars are wasted?

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I am aware of the decisions that have been made lately, and I believe that the city of Toronto's was thrown out on the technical matter that the council had not passed the decision before but rather passed it retroactively. He may well be right. The city of Toronto may simply correct its procedure and file again.

I've told the mayors, indeed in the presence of both of those mayors and others, that I consider that holding ordinary home owners to ransom in what amounts to a war between the municipalities is not only inappropriate in terms of the individuals who have been either deliberately or randomly chosen and must suffer through this while a municipality decides to appeal against them, but that it's very bad use of taxpayers' money to do so.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the minister conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Philip: I'm hoping that calmer heads will prevail, that this war between the municipalities will be stopped and that we can work together to find a form of taxation which is acceptable to all of the municipalities.

Mr David Johnson: Mr Minister, you've mentioned the mayors. I'll quote the mayor of the city of Scarborough. The mayor of the city of Scarborough has said all hell will break loose. There will be a real free-for-all unless you, Minister, solve this problem. The mayor of the city of Toronto has said that she will appeal the disqualification of the Scarborough property assessments.

You've mentioned the property owners being held hostage. I'm going to quote to you the chair of the Assessment Review Board for the province of Ontario. The chairman of that board has said, "Ordinary citizens are caught in the crossfire and are being used by one side or the other to force concessions."

Minister, there are thousands of home owners in Metropolitan Toronto who are suffering deep anxiety about this. Their assessments are being appealed by a big government, whether it's Scarborough, whether it's Toronto, and those appeals are threatening to increase their assessments, their taxes. These are seniors, these are people on fixed incomes, these are people who are unemployed, these are people who can't afford this kind of increase that's being challenged.

My question to you again is, what are you going to do? What plan do you have to tackle this problem?

Hon Mr Philip: Metropolitan Toronto has brought forward two separate proposals. The latest proposal is in fact undergoing public hearings at the moment. I am in constant contact. As a matter of fact, yesterday I spoke to Chairman Tonks. I have been in constant and regular contact with the mayors. I was with them some three weeks ago and we had an interesting three-hour meeting of the mayors for the greater Toronto area at which there was representation from the various cities.

I noticed that the honourable member, whose advice I appreciate because of his experience as a mayor, was able to analyse the problem. We all agree that there is a problem. It's not a problem that this government created; it is a Metro problem of assessment.

There are hearings going on, and I think that if the honourable member, with his municipal experience, has some solutions to offer, either to the assessment hearings that are now going on or to the Fair Tax Commission, which will be bringing down its recommendations shortly, in November, I'd certainly like to hear his proposals, and I'm sure the Fair Tax Commission and the Metro hearings would love to hear his proposals on how you come out of this solution.

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): My question is to the Minister of Housing. Today I attended a press conference, Minister, that gravely concerned me. This press conference was held by a delegation of constituents who came down here to Queen's Park out of complete desperation. They face a dire situation. In short, within a few months they could be thrown out into the streets, over 300 families without a place to live. The villain in this case is the federal government. Many of these have lived in these homes for decades; in fact, generations.

My question is, if the federal government in Ottawa appears to be determined to toss these people out of their houses, I want to understand the impact this will have on the impact on the housing stock in my area.

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): The member raises a question which had occurred to me first when reading the Transport Canada press release of August 25 about these very lands, in which the then Transport minister -- still Transport minister -- federally talked about providing tenants with assistance to help them stay in their community. The quote was, "The majority of tenants living on these lands have been renting their properties for five years or more," and the minister was interested in maintaining the fabric of the community.

But the press release goes on to say that the tenants would be offered the possibility of purchasing at market value the properties that they're renting. Now, given the kind of growth that has occurred in that larger area over the 20 years that the federal government has held this land, that is going to be a pretty high market value. I'm concerned, looking at the housing questions that this raises, that it's going to have a very serious effect on many households in that area.

1450

Mr O'Connor: Minister, as my colleagues have raised -- and we've presented petitions on this issue, because it's very important -- the federal government had opened an information office. Then they closed the information office. My tenants really didn't know where to go to, and I guess that's part of their desperation.

There are over 300 families here, Minister -- single moms, some seniors, some disabled people -- and what really bothers me is the chance of them finding affordable housing today in that area -- there's not a lot of it, because it's a rural area -- 300 families tossed out of their houses. What is the chance of them finding affordable housing today?

Hon Ms Gigantes: I can't give a case-by-case description, but it certainly raises the question of what people in these households are going to do. The federal government also had suggested that if people were not prepared to buy at market value, then they could arrange a 15% adjustment against the market value of the property if the person purchasing were willing to stay there for five years. I think that still, for many of the households in that area, it puts them in a situation where essentially they're going to have to move, that they won't be able to afford the kinds of conditions the federal government is putting on this land sale if they're going to continue to stay in those properties. It does raise some very serious questions which I hope we're not going to have to deal with; I hope we'll be able to discuss this matter with the federal government and get it to take a longer-term view of what should be happening with this property overall.

PLANT CLOSURE

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. The Minister of Agriculture and Food will be aware of a recent decision by Pillsbury food to move its Green Giant vegetable processing plant in Essex county to Quebec. The plant's closure, which will come into effect next year, means the loss of 110 full-time jobs and over 500 seasonal jobs. The closure also means lost vegetable contracts for over 100 of our best farmers in Essex county. There have been many rumours of the plant closure for the past two years, and production has been declining, but the announcement has still been devastating to the people in the area.

Why has the Minister of Agriculture and Food been so silent on this closure, which is affecting so many farmers and a loss of jobs? What has the minister done to try to keep this vegetable processing plant in Ontario?

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): The honourable member talked about being silent. We maybe can be accused of being silent, but we certainly have been talking to Pillsbury. We talk to the food processing industry on a regular basis. We didn't have advance knowledge. We were not aware of the closure of this plant, but we certainly are aware of the difficulties faced by the food processing industry. The plant that the member refers to employs a large number of people and there are many, many farmers who depend on that plant for the sale of their produce.

We do have to recognize that times are changing. Part of the production at the plant in Tecumseh is canning. We know that consumers in some cases are moving away from canned produce and moving into frozen produce that they can prepare more quickly.

We are in fact meeting, my staff and the members from the Windsor area -- there's a meeting going on as we speak -- and looking at what will happen to that plant, whether anyone is interested in buying it, retrofitting it or at least providing some opportunity for farmers in that area to continue to grow produce that could be processed at that plant. We will continue to work with whoever is interested in doing that.

Mr Cleary: Minister, we are aware of some of the meetings that are going on, but we'd like to hear the results of them. The minister will be aware that the Quebec Pillsbury plant, which is where Essex operations is moving, recently received a $321,000 capital grant from the federal Department of Health and Welfare. The people in Essex-Kent can't understand how the federal Tories can justify a Health and Welfare grant for the vegetable processing operation, and there have been concerns expressed that the grant has proven a carrot to relocate the Ontario plant in Quebec.

The farmers and plant workers in Essex-Kent want your government to help them with any options to keep the operation open and the town of Tecumseh is interested in working with Pillsbury and the province to keep this plant running and save jobs by finding another buyer or even setting up a local co-op.

Are you prepared to help this town pursue the options to save 110 full-time jobs, 500 summer students' jobs and 100 farmers in Essex county? You have said some of the things that you were going to do, but we'd like to know more of what you're going to do to keep the plant open.

Hon Mr Buchanan: I hope the honourable member doesn't expect me to defend what the Conservative federal government's Department of Health and Welfare is doing with its money. It's a little bit more than I could do to defend their actions.

I would point out, though, that this company has not only closed the plant in Tecumseh. They've closed a number of plants in Canada and in the US; this is part of a rationalization the company is undergoing.

The member asked me to meet with groups. We're certainly interested in meeting with the farmers especially, to look at what their future may be, whether that's a co-op, whether there's any opportunities to purchase that equipment or the plant, in fact. Other people are meeting as we speak, as mentioned earlier, to look at the future of the plant.

I would, however, caution the member that if Green Giant could not produce canned vegetables at this plant and make a go of it, we have to be cautious about having governments prop up companies and production lines that are not profitable and not going to be available in the long term. We will explore what opportunities there are to continue the employment and continue the growing of vegetables in the area so that there is some future for farmers in Essex south.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): My question is to the Minister of Health. Mike Harris, the leader of the Ontario PC Party, and I have been meeting with independent --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Jim Wilson: Hey, I know we're leading the polls, but at least you could be quiet for a moment while I do my question.

Mike Harris and I, on behalf of our caucus colleagues, have been meeting with independent ambulance operators from across Ontario. They all tell us the same thing, and that is that with regard to their sector under the social contract, they believe the social contract is nothing but a setup and that it's part of a socialist, ideologically driven hidden agenda to drive these independent operators out of business.

Given your government's record to date in driving the private sector out of the delivery of child care services and given your repeatedly announced intention to drive the private sector out of the delivery of home care services, what assurances can we provide these business people that they will still be in business at the expiry of the social contract on March 31, 1996, and, secondly, that they will not arbitrarily be forced to become employees of a new government agency as recommended under the Swimmer report?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I'm not quite sure what degree of paranoia is where in the people with whom the member has been talking, but let me assure him of two points.

First of all, any business in this climate has to manage its affairs as effectively and as efficiently as possible to stay in business. I hope the ambulance operators, in coping with the impact on their wage bills of the social contract, are doing that, because that is how they are going to survive.

Second, with respect to implementation of the Swimmer report, which I think is what he's really getting at, as part of the social contract, a committee has been established to examine the impact of the Swimmer report on the cost of emergency services, and I will await with interest the conclusions of that work.

1500

The Speaker: Time for oral questions has expired.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to apologize to you. I was very concerned during the question from the member for Durham West to the Minister of Natural Resources that very important information which I have, information, for example, that landfills in Pickering have 195 acres of open space --

The Speaker: What is your point of order?

Mrs Caplan: -- and in Whitby 1,355 agricultural acres --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. If the member has a point of order, I would appreciate it if she would get to it quickly.

Mrs Caplan: I do have a legitimate point of order, as I apologized to you for my outburst when the question was asked of the Minister of Natural Resources. I know how important it is for members not to be misleading the House, and when I saw that 1,355 acres of agricultural land had been sold in Whitby and that the Whitevale golf course, 173 acres --

The Speaker: The member does not have a point of order, although I do appreciate her apology for the disruption in the House.

PETITIONS

CASINO GAMBLING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This is a petition about casino gambling in Ontario:

"Whereas the Christian is called to love of neighbour, which includes a concern for the general wellbeing of society; and

"Whereas there is a direct link between the higher availability of legalized gambling and the incidence of addictive gambling (Macdonald and Macdonald, Pathological Gambling: The Problem, Treatment and Outcome, Canadian Foundation on Compulsive Gambling); and

"Whereas the damage of addiction to gambling in individuals is compounded by the damage done to families, both emotionally and economically; and

"Whereas the gambling market is already saturated with various kinds of government-operated lotteries; and

"Whereas large-scale gambling activity invariably attracts criminal activity; and

"Whereas the citizens of Detroit have since 1976 on three occasions voted down the introduction of casinos into that city, each time with a larger majority than the time before;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the government of Ontario cease all moves to establish gambling casinos."

I am signing this petition as I am in agreement with its contents.

EXPENDITURE CONTROL

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): This is a petition from approximately 1,000 people who attended the Markham fair on the weekend. I am pleased to present it today on their behalf, with my signature affixed to it.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Bob Rae government has levied $2 billion worth of new and increased taxes in 1993 from the Ontario taxpayer;" and they particularly figure you, Floyd, I'll tell you, "and

"Whereas tax increases do not improve the economy and do little to stimulate economic development and job creation in Ontario; and

"Whereas Bob Rae has not stopped health card fraud, the construction of needless public housing and the inappropriate construction of the Workers' Compensation Board tower, all of which cost the taxpayers millions each year;

"We, the undersigned, demand that Bob Rae run the government like a business by reducing waste and controlling expenditures."

Interjections.

Mr Cousens: I just know it really got to them because they started to crow away like stuck seals.

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the federal government intends to dispose of surplus lands on the Pickering airport site that are agriculturally rich and environmentally sensitive; and

"Whereas the residents have not been informed of the immediacy of the federal government sale plan;

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

"Therefore, that the provincial government of Ontario request of the federal government of Canada to initiate a public review by panel of the federal Minister of the Environment --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order, please. I would encourage members to hold conversations outside the House.

Mr O'Connor: -- "to ensure an organized disposal protecting these rural resources and the community of residents there."

We had two of those residents here today to watch question period. If they had a public information session, had a chance to input into things like the Walker property purchase this provincial government's done, the Rouge Valley Park, I think they would be much more satisfied with a public and open process, and I affix my name to this petition.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I have a petition from a number of people in Ingersoll, Embro, Woodstock, London, St Thomas and other places in Ontario, which reads as follows:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has stated that multiservice agencies, the new single local point of access for long-term care and support services, must purchase 90% of their homemaking and professional services from not-for-profit providers, therefore virtually eliminating use of commercial providers;

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

"We protest the action to drastically reduce the service provision by commercial providers and respectfully request that the impact of this policy decision, including a cost study, be performed before any further implementation."

I concur with this petition and have affixed my name to it.

ST GREGORY SEPARATE SCHOOL

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): For a number of days now I've been presenting petitions from St Gregory Separate School, and I will do so again today. It's a petition to the Legislature of Ontario and it goes much like this:

"Whereas the voters and taxpayers of the St Gregory school community have been requesting funds for a much-needed renovation and expansion of the present facility for 11 years; and

"Whereas the Metropolitan Toronto Separate School Board has placed St Gregory school as one of the highest priorities on the capital expenditure forecast list;" and this petition is a little older, so it's not just "one of"; I think it's now number one;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to allocate capital funds to the St Gregory school."

There is a number of petitions I've brought in. Thousands of people in St Gregory's area have signed this petition and I am proud to put my name to this petition as well.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): And so you should be.

Mr Stockwell: The member for St Catharines says so I should be.

GAMBLING

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): "Whereas the New Democratic Party government has not consulted the citizens of the province regarding the expansion of gambling; and

"Whereas families are made more emotionally and economically vulnerable by the operation of various gaming and gambling ventures; and

"Whereas creditable academic studies have shown that state-operated gambling is nothing more than a regressive tax on the poor; and

"Whereas the New Democratic Party has in the past vociferously opposed the raising of moneys for the state through gambling; and

"Whereas the government has not attempted to address the very serious concerns that have been raised by groups and individuals regarding the potential growth in crime;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos and refrain from introducing video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario."

I present the petition and I affix my signature.

HOME CARE

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I have a petition which reads as follows:

"We are employees of Med-Care Partnership, one of the commercial home health agencies in the province of Ontario, who will be affected by your government's decision to eliminate commercial home care from the province of Ontario. We have been trained by our employer to provide in-home care and domestic services to the elderly, frail and handicapped who wish to live independently at home. We are the employees whose jobs and livelihoods are in jeopardy and stand to be eliminated.

"Because of this, we believe our clients will suffer too. Ten years ago it was determined that an exclusively public system could not meet the needs of the community, and commercial agencies were formed. Why let history repeat itself? We protest the action by your government and insist you study the impact of your policy decision before any further implementation."

I concur with this petition and have affixed my name to it.

1510

CLOSURE OF LIQUOR STORE

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): On behalf of more than 1,000 of my constituents, most of them seniors in the Cliffside Village area:

"We, the undersigned, understand that the liquor store at 2351 Kingston Road in Cliffside Village will be closing October 9, 1993.

"Notwithstanding the mission statement of the Liquor Licensing Board of Ontario, that is, to provide service to the people of Ontario; and further,

"Notwithstanding the fact that although the store will be closed on October 9, 1993, the Liquor Licensing Board of Ontario will be paying rent to the property owners until 1998;

"We, the undersigned, request that this store remain open."

I hereby affix my signature of support.

VIOLENCE IN BOSNIA-HERCEGOVINA

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition from the education and public awareness committee of the women's rural resource centre of Strathroy and area and residents of Middlesex who ask the Legislative Assembly to seek action in support of women in Bosnia-Hercegovina who have survived inhuman atrocities. Estimates suggest that at least 20,000 women and girls have been systematically and brutally raped by men who were once their neighbours.

They further petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to request a federal investigation of the sexual coercion and torture of women in Bosnia-Hercegovina to petition the United Nations to review the actions of these perpetrators of woman abuse and to seek, plan and develop new avenues of support for the women in Bosnia-Hercegovina who have been inhumanly violated.

I would also add that the Federation of Women Teachers' Associations of Ontario, representing 42,000 women, has drafted a similar petition directed to the government of Canada. I have signed my name to this petition.

HEALTH CARE

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas proposals made under the government's expenditure control plan and social contract initiatives regarding health care in the province of Ontario will have a devastating impact on access to and the delivery of health care; and

"Whereas these proposals will result in a severe reduction in the provision of quality health care services across the province;

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

"The government of Ontario move immediately to withdraw these proposed measures and reaffirm its commitment to rational reform of Ontario's health care system through its obligations under the 1991 Ontario Medical Association/government framework and economic agreement."

I have signed the petition.

ONTARIO FILM REVIEW BOARD

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): This is from constituents in my riding and thereabouts to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas the Ontario Film Review Board at its May 6, 1993, policy committee meeting decided to loosen the guidelines for the film videos for Ontario; and

"Whereas the loosening results in some very gross and indecent acts in the film videos; and

"Whereas these acts include bondage, insertion of foreign objects; and

"Whereas the aforementioned acts are not in any way part of true human sexual activity, but rather belong in textbooks for case studies of deviants; and

"Whereas these activities not only violate community standards but parts of the Canadian Criminal Code;

"We, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the Ontario Legislature to cancel the new policy resolution of the Ontario Film Review Board and dismiss the chairperson, Dorothy Christian, from her position for her lack of sensitivity toward Ontarians and for being more dedicated to represent special interest groups than the taxpayers of Ontario."

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): I have a petition signed by many people from southern Ontario who are now becoming more and more outraged at the treatment of the people on the north Pickering lands.

"To the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas the federal government intends to dispose of surplus lands on the Pickering airport site that are agriculturally rich and environmentally sensitive; and

"Whereas the residents have not been informed of the immediacy of the federal government sale plan;

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

"Therefore, that the provincial government of Ontario request of the federal government" -- and I think that's been done quite adequately today; it's nice to see that the provincial government is living up to its obligations and it would be nice if the federal government would also live up to its obligations as outlined in its own reports -- "to initiate a public review by a panel of the federal Minister of the Environment" -- which is also outlined in their reports -- "to ensure an organized disposal protecting these rural resources and the community of residents there."

I affix my signature in the hope that the federal government will listen to the plight of these people.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FARM REGISTRATION AND FARM ORGANIZATIONS FUNDING ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR L'INSCRIPTION DES ENTREPRISES AGRICOLES ET LE FINANCEMENT DES ORGANISMES AGRICOLES

Mr Buchanan moved third reading of Bill 42, An Act to provide for Farm Registration and Funding for Farm Organizations that provide Education and Analysis of Farming Issues on behalf of Farmers / Projet de loi 42, Loi prévoyant l'inscription des entreprises agricoles et le financement des organismes agricoles qui offrent des services d'éducation et d'analyse en matière de questions agricoles pour le compte des agriculteurs.

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): First of all, I would like to acknowledge and welcome representatives from two Ontario farm organizations who are visitors here with us today, who are here to see the acceptance and the passing of Bill 42.

I have a few names; I'm not sure I have them all. From the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, we have the chief executive officer, Carl Sulliman, who is in the members' gallery. We have the vice-president, Ed Sedgeworth. We have Gary Commence. We also have Brigid Pyke, the well-known former president of the OFA, and her husband. We have Dona Stewardson, a vice-president, as well.

Representing the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario in the visitors' gallery to the west, we have Elbert van Donkersgoed, who is the director of research and policy development. We welcome you here this afternoon for this historic moment.

I think everyone here is familiar with the farm registration and farm organizations funding bill, so we'd like to point out the strengths of the bill and address some of the concerns that have been raised regarding certain aspects of the bill.

First and foremost, the legislation will institute a funding mechanism to provide general farm organizations with the kind of financial support they need and deserve. Their efforts in research and education and providing policy advice to governments have benefited all Ontario farmers and should not be allowed to falter due to a lack of funding.

In these days of major restructuring in the entire agriculture and food industry, I believe it is imperative for farmers to have a strong voice in the decision-making process. With rapid change occurring in farm technology and management practices, the up-to-date information provided by these organizations is also critical to farmers' ability to remain competitive. Without appropriate funding, farm organizations will not be able to continue the kind of research and education process that they have so ably carried out up to now.

Provisions under regulations to be drafted for the legislation will also help empower farmers at the local level. Each farm organization will be required to provide 25% of its net revenues to its local organizations. Not only will this help establish effective representation on the local level, but it will ensure that the organizations remain sensitive to grass-roots concerns.

The stronger financing to local organizations will allow them to be more involved in planning and projects that benefit the community as well as the farmers. General farm organizations have traditionally been key players in stimulating economic activity in rural communities. By increasing local resources to farm organizations, the legislation supports the revitalization of rural communities as well.

At the same time, this bill's requirement for farm businesses to register with the ministry will mean better service to the entire farming community. Because the information will be updated annually, we can obtain accurate, timely information with which to develop new and improve on existing policy and programs. As it stands, we base decisions on census data which are updated only once very five years.

1520

In addition, our ability to disseminate information on programs will improve with the comprehensive mailing lists that we have available to us from the registration process. I'd like to assure everyone here and everyone in the farming community that all personal information provided to the ministry will be subject to the protection offered under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as it currently exists.

The bill we have before us has been improved in a number of areas that raised farmers' concerns when its predecessor, Bill 105, was introduced. The non-refundable farm organizations fee under Bill 105 has been replaced with a refundable fee so that farmers have the option of asking for their money back. However, I think that many farmers will see the benefits of supporting these organizations and will not request that refund.

Other concerns about the legislation have also been addressed. We have worked with the Mennonite community leaders to alleviate their concerns regarding registration and providing funding to farm organizations. As result, Bill 42 includes a provision that allows Mennonites and other religious objectors to apply for an independent accreditation board for an exemption from sending a cheque to and registering with the ministry.

Bill 42 provides for a special funding mechanism for an eligible francophone farm organization. This is in keeping with the province's long-standing policy of encouraging and fostering the culture and language of our francophone community.

While it is true that less than half of Ontario's farmers belong to the organizations currently being accredited for funding under the legislation, other general farm organizations which meet the criteria will be able to apply to receive funding. This makes the legislation flexible in meeting the needs of a wider variety of interests in the farming community.

In this regard, the legislation is unique. Nowhere else in Canada do farm businesses have a choice of which farm organization they wish to support. I think it's healthy. It provides impetus to organizations to be accountable for their actions and focus on the needs of farmers.

There've also been some general concerns about how we are putting this legislation in place. I'd like to dispel some of those right up front. Some have called for a general vote in the farm community on the whole idea of stable funding. With the new bill's provision for refunds, farmers will effectively be voting with their chequebooks. Bill 42 also gives the minister discretion to call for a review of the legislation in three years if substantial numbers of farmers request refunds. However, again, I think the merits of supporting general farm organizations will quickly become apparent and farmers will recognize the benefits in continuing their support.

Along the same lines, some have argued that there was insufficient consultation conducted in the lead-up to this legislation. Members know that last summer 14 public meetings were conducted by the participating general farm organizations and the ministry in July of last year. Farmers were encouraged to either attend the meetings or phone a toll free-number with their views.

The fact that we have an improved bill before us now attests to the kind of care we have taken to address the concerns of the farming community. Making the fee refundable, removing the Farm Organizations Funding Corp and removing the provision for fines are responses to those concerns. As some of you know, the idea of funding has been around for more than 20 years. The concept has had a thorough airing in the farm community at different points over that time. I can assure members that all farm businesses affected by the legislation will know well in advance of the bill coming into force what its requirements and benefits will be.

The new registration and funding system will also be administered in a way that is both fair and cost-efficient. As I've said several times, funding and staffing for the registration system will come out of existing ministry resources. No new staff will be hired and no further funding will be needed to run the system.

We have also simplified the process by eliminating the Farm Organizations Funding Corp, which was proposed under Bill 105. As the legislation stands, farmers make their cheques payable directly to the general farm organizations they choose to support. This is much more efficient than having to go through a third organization.

An independent accreditation tribunal will be needed to provide objective decisions on both accreditation and religious objector applications, but the tribunal will sit only as required, so we expect its operating costs to be minimal. Existing ministry resources will be used for administrative support both in terms of staff and funding.

Some farmers fear that the refundable nature of the fees may be arbitrarily revoked by the minister and that they'll wind up paying, regardless of how they feel. Let me assure you that this kind of change could only happen under a legislative amendment which would have to be approved by a majority of MPPs.

In addition to the public consultations held with farmers, Bill 42 recently was reviewed by the resources development committee. These hearings lasted eight days, during which a number of issues were raised by participants and fellow members of this House. Once again, presenters and members of the committee raised concern that section 33 of the legislation should provide for a mandatory review of the act. Ultimately, I believe that the responsibility rests on the minister of the crown to determine the desirability of conducting a review and it is he or she who represents the farming community in cabinet.

The matter of promptly issuing refunds was also raised. Some persons were concerned that the definition expressed in the legislation was not clear enough and required a specific time frame. The legislation states that accredited farm organizations must issue refunds promptly. This implies a serious obligation for these organizations, and I believe alone is sufficient.

In my opinion, it is in the best interests of accredited farm organizations to issue refunds as quickly as possible. Poor service will not be forgotten and will be factored into future decisions by farmers as they register annually and choose to support an accredited organization. I understand that the Ontario Federation of Agriculture has already committed to turning around refund requests in 30 days.

There were also concerns expressed that the legislation lacked detail on the registration and the tribunal selection process, such as the accreditation criteria. I will assure this House that the obligations for registration and the accreditation criteria will be fully described in regulations, which will proceed through cabinet over the next few weeks.

Finally, I have referred to the fact that we have attempted to work closely with the Mennonite community in developing this legislation. At committee, a number of presentations were made that certain provisions of the legislation, particularly the act of registration, might not prove acceptable to elements of the Mennonite community. As a result, the committee amended section 21 of the legislation to allow individuals to apply to the tribunal for a religious exemption both from paying a fee and from registering their farm business.

As I mentioned, this legislation marks the culmination of over 20 years of hard work by the farming community. Over the past two and a half years, I have worked developing this legislation with three general farm organizations which I believe to represent many of the interests of the farm community across Ontario: the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario, the National Farmers Union and the Ontario Federation of Agriculture.

It was always my intention to have these organizations form the foundation of a funding mechanism for general farm organizations. Regrettably, when it came time to finalize this legislation, the National Farmers Union asked me to withdraw the organization from consideration as an accredited organization. I have done so reluctantly.

The NFU has withdrawn partially because it fundamentally disagrees with certain key aspects of the legislation and partly because in the end the bill would alter its national organizational structure, which the organization felt would outweigh the benefits of participating. While I do not agree with their position on certain issues, particularly the need to have a producer vote, I have valued their insights, their participation and their contribution. Indeed, some of their concerns have been reflected in the final legislation.

Perhaps the most compelling reason to introduce this legislation at this time is the rapidly changing environment our agriculture and food industry finds itself in. In order to remain competitive, farmers must have access to the latest information on management practices, technology and the emerging issues that they need to think about and deal with. Increasingly, farmers are finding it necessary, in a complicated world, to remain in touch with one another and with the trends that are affecting their future livelihoods. General farm organizations play an integral role in assisting them with vital educational and networking services.

At the same time, in these days of fiscal constraint, government should have accurate information on exactly who we are serving so that we can better focus our policies and programs on areas where they are most needed. The days when the economy was buoyant, revenues were high and the government could continually introduce new programs and services are gone and I think they're gone for good.

Now, even with a substantial economic recovery, the public will demand a full accounting from the government of uses to which their hard-earned dollars are spent. This bill will allow us to collect the kind of information that will be in direct benefit to the farming community. It will also provide a stable source of funding for the important work done by the GFOs for the entire food industry.

I am encouraged by the amount of support this legislation already has in the farming communities throughout the province, and am convinced that those who are currently reluctant to support it will see and experience the benefits of it in the coming years.

1530

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Questions or comments?

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I want to respond to the minister's comments in the time that's permitted, because I'm not going to be able to participate in the debate later this afternoon. I want to say to the minister that this bill is an improvement over the bill that we first saw some months ago, and I congratulate the minister, his officials and members of the Legislature, including my colleagues from communities like Cornwall and Northumberland, who worked, along with the other members of the assembly, to improve this bill. The bill is now without the penalty provisions that were so controversial in first instance and there have been a number of other amendments that have been brought forward, in some cases by my colleagues to whom I have made reference earlier.

I want to say in the presence of very distinguished representatives of the general farm organizations, at least some of which are represented here today, that the farmers in my community well understand the good work they do.

There is, however, an expectation, as the minister suggested, that refunds are going to be very quickly processed and that we're not going to use administrative instruments to -- how shall I say this? -- undermine the intent of the legislation and the clear intent of many of the submissions to the committee.

I want to say as well that there are still a good number of farmers out there who are concerned about the full agenda here. The minister has said that it will be a matter of executive privilege as to how and when this process is going to be reviewed. There was an expectation and a hope in some quarters that there would be an automatic review. That is not in the legislation. It is going to be left to a minister of the crown under support from the community as represented here in the Legislature.

I simply want to say, on behalf of the farmers of Renfrew, that we appreciate the good work that the general farm organizations have done and the improvements that are in this bill, but there still are concerns around a number of the issues. I hope those concerns continue to be addressed as we move forward to implement this new legislation, Bill 42.

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): I too, in the two minutes available, want to respond to the minister's opening remarks. It was enjoyable, I will say, to sit in on the hearings that occurred over eight days during this past summer. Yes, we had a number of people who expressed major concerns and we had a great number of people who gave their wholehearted support to Bill 42, as opposed to what would have been a very controversial Bill 105, which indeed, if we had tried to correct it, I don't think could have been corrected and still remain a bill as originally presented to this Legislature.

I was certainly pleased to have some input along with my colleagues and the leader of the Ontario PC Party, Mike Harris, who certainly made his position quite clear on the refundable aspect of this particular legislation. I think that was a very positive aspect, as the minister has said. People will be voting with their chequebook. Indeed, some of the amendments that we brought forth will precipitate and ensure prompt reimbursement of those who wish to have their funds reimbursed. Secondly, the aspect of religious requirements will be exempt. I think that's most important and I think the government acted in a very, very accommodating fashion, reopening certain items of the bill as we proceeded through committee.

But in item 33, and I will be addressing this somewhat later, I certainly would have liked to have seen an open committee that could accommodate the kind of concerns which we, clairvoyant as we think we are, maybe would not have been able to foresee at this particular time.

The Deputy Speaker: Any further questions or comments? If not, Minister, you have two minutes to reply.

Hon Mr Buchanan: Just very briefly, I would like to thank the members who have made comments. The member for Renfrew North in his comments simply reflects the fact that the system works, that we brought a piece of legislation forward, that members in the Legislature had a chance to comment on it, that we sent it out to committee and that the farmers and farm organizations have had their opportunity to present their support and their lack of support at committee level and that there were a number of amendments made in this legislation that has been brought forward for third reading.

As the member for S-D-G & East Grenville pointed out, he had one amendment he would have liked to have seen which was not accepted at the end of the day, but overall I do appreciate the cooperation and the support we've had on this, because basically, as I understand at the moment, this has all-party support. That's because we've worked together back and forth in order to modify the legislation to make it acceptable to everyone.

That's one of my major principles and goals, to make sure that we unify the farm community and have farmers working together and farm organizations cooperating, as opposed to arguing and fighting with each other. It's very important for the future of agriculture that we work together, and I appreciate the support we've gotten from the opposition.

The Deputy Speaker: Any further debate?

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): Mr Speaker, it is my understanding there has been three-party agreement that my colleague Joan Fawcett and myself will split the first amount of the allotted time back to back.

The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous agreement? Agreed.

Mr Cleary: I would like to commence by stating that I am pleased that the Minister of Agriculture and Food decided to bring this piece of legislation into the Legislature so quickly. I was afraid that he might stall as long as he did in the last session, when we watched seven weeks of the Legislature pass before introducing Bill 42, which is simply a tamed-down version of the previously prepared and much-despised Bill 105 that he tried to slip through the House last fall. Even then, it took the minister almost two months before he brought the same bill back for second reading.

In light of the obvious dragging of ministerial feet, so to speak, you can imagine my surprise when I heard it suggested that the opposition was stalling the bill. The registration forms were not even available. While I am uncertain where the root of this talk may have come from, just as I am perplexed that some farmers heard that I voted against Bill 42 on second reading, which I did not, I am pleased that we finally have the opportunity to draw to a close this long and much anticipated legislation that may prove so vital to rural Ontario.

I know many of our farm organizations, some of which are with us today, worked very hard, along with a lot of other agricultural people in Ontario. We all have to thank them for that.

Of course, I must allow that as long as stable funding legislation has been in the making, close to a quarter of a century, I still have apprehensions over this latest attempt and how it will impact farmers. I know that many farmers across Ontario share the uncertainty and I think all parties and all farmers have to work very closely to make this legislation work.

For that reason, I was relieved when the minister told me, previous to my being asked to vote on the fate of the second reading of the bill, that he would send it to committee for full public hearings. Minister, I appreciate your intentions to get further input, and that's why I was able to support the bill.

I was shocked, however, when certain Tory and NDP members pushed for third and final reading of Bill 42 on the same day that it received second reading, without ensuring the adequate consultation and study which even the minister suggested was necessary. I'm pleased that the minister had better judgement. But perhaps I was even more startled when the same members who demanded that the bill be thrust on to farmers without further consultation suddenly changed their tune and paraded around saying that the hearings were necessary and responded to the needs of democracy.

1540

Despite the conflicting messages and apparent willingness of some members to overlook democratic participation, I firmly uphold that the two weeks devoted to public hearings this past summer were an excellent opportunity for our farming community, our farming organizations, our chambers of commerce and parliamentarians alike. I'm sure all who participated in those hearings learned a lot about agriculture in this province.

The hearings quickly revealed that the NDP bill was not perfect, that a significant portion of the farm community was not pleased, and subsequently forced the minister to recognize that amendments were necessary. Further, as all three parties moved over 20 amendments to the bill during committee clause-by-clause review, it is apparent that no one should have suggested that the bill was prepared and ready to receive final reading last July.

With this in mind, many of you will be aware that I and my caucus colleagues put forward a number of amendments.

We sought assurance of the timely processing and, if requested, the refund of the $150 registration fee.

We demanded that all farmers be guaranteed return of their money if they requested it, regardless of any financial difficulties that the ministry or the GFO may run into in the program.

We also asked that all forms of information supplied to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food be used solely for gathering farm data and not to monitor or regulate any other act or regulation.

Of course, I still have concerns over whisperings that I've heard many times -- they're unconfirmed speculation, but none the less disturbing suggestions -- that this legislation has been doggedly pushed by certain parties in exchange for other unrelated concessions, such as farm-related labour legislation or even possible ministry cutbacks in the future.

We requested that the ministry guarantee that the registration fee always be directed for research and education and not adopt any options to use or increase the fee as non-taxable revenue for the ministry's coffers.

We also insisted that the program undergo a current review with an all-party legislative committee within three years, something that our party felt very strongly about.

We even asked that in addition to religious objections economic hardship be considered a sufficient reason for fee exemption.

As well, we requested that the minister table all information he receives from the registration process in terms of crop figures, but not personal farm incomes, as well as the cost of administering the program. Obviously, if it was ever to be revealed that the administration costs exceeded the fees generated, then the program should be abandoned.

We are also concerned about administration costs that may cut in and that we may lose other agricultural programs, because we know that the Ministry of Agriculture and Food has a limited budget. The expense of this program should not outweigh any benefits achieved through education, research and policy advice, particularly as we see cuts to other vital ministry services such as field staff, dairy inspectors and agricultural colleges closed.

Our caucus was also sympathetic to the Mennonite and Amish concerns about the bill and how it relates to their religious beliefs. To this end, while I was pleased that there was an amendment put forward and accepted during the committee hearings that will allow Mennonites to be exempt from registering, I am not convinced that all of their concerns have been alleviated.

Perhaps my current apprehension over the religious provisions have been heightened as a result of the incident during the hearings. First, the Agriculture minister appeared before the hearings on August 23 and assured members that the Mennonite community was satisfied with Bill 42 as it currently stood. Shortly after that, however, a Mennonite bishop came before the committee and stated, and I quote from the Hansard of August 31: "I saw a copy of Mr Buchanan's presentation.... He incorrectly presented the feelings of the Mennonite and Amish communities."

In fact, the bishop went on to reveal that the Mennonites have a number of outstanding concerns with Bill 42, including their reluctance to support, in any way, a lobby group; the suggested link between registering and receiving government assistance programs; and of course having their religious sincerity evaluated by an agricultural tribunal.

Indeed, the very foundation of the legislation, which is for all farmers to supply GFOs with $150 for lobby groups to influence and sway the government, betrays their fundamental belief that government looks after their very best interests.

On that note, it is my sincere hope that the minister has altered his preconceived and misinformed notion that Mennonites approve of Bill 42 and that he has looked into their concerns and provided a real solution to accommodate their religious beliefs, but I do not believe they have been entirely addressed yet. In fact, just yesterday I was contacted by a Mennonite church leader, and he offered that their leaders should establish a three-person committee to represent all Mennonites and Amish farmers in meeting with the ministry's tribunal or any other government involvement over this legislation.

Finally, I maintain, as I always have, that if stable funding is to be implemented, it must be the will and choice of all farmers in the agricultural community. Even at the conclusion of the hearings this past summer, I do not believe that any member of the Legislature could stand up in good conscience and say that there is a single and unified voice on this issue.

Clearly there is not, and there remains a certain amount of opposition. I believe our role is to listen to the farmers of the province, heed the advice and options they offer and develop effective agricultural legislation. That is why I objected to the minister's first attempt at stable funding legislation, the offensive Bill 105 brought forward last fall, and have since strived to ensure that its replacement, Bill 42, receives public hearings and input.

I firmly believe that the provisions in the bill of gathering up-to-date information and statistics will assist farmers in the future in planning coordinated food strategies, while at the same time allowing the Agriculture and Food ministry to react and develop effective policies and programs. This being said, I also appreciate the concerns of many farmers that this component of the bill is only a sugar coating to get to the real thrust of the legislation: to transfer between $7 million and $10 million in government funding over to lobby groups.

To this end, I can appreciate that view of the dissenting farmers that organizations such as the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario or the Ontario Federation of Agriculture may not represent their interests. After all -- and let's be frank -- there are an estimated 65,000 farmers in this province, yet fewer than one third of those farmers have voluntarily chosen to become a member of a general farm organization. Clearly, not all farmers believe that one of the three major GFOs -- the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the Christian Farmers, or even the National Farmers Union, which has denounced Bill 42 -- represents their interests.

For my part, I am satisfied that we have made a very real effort to take the pulse of the farmers across Ontario on the issue. I have tried to communicate those concerns back to the Agriculture minister. As well, I attempted to evoke appropriate changes to Bill 42 during the clause-by-clause review last summer. At this point, while I still feel there are many areas of improvement, I'm very pleased about the 25% of the funds going back to our local farm organizations in each of our communities. I will be voting in favour of the third reading of Bill 42.

It is my sincere hope that the legislators, the farm organizations and all the farmers will be able to take this version of Bill 42 and work together in developing long-term effective policies and programs for rural Ontario, which are much needed.

1550

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): I am most pleased today to participate in the long-awaited end, I guess we could say, or certainly the long-awaited third reading debate of Bill 42, the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, more commonly known in the ag and food community as the stable funding bill.

What I would like to do first of all is again clearly emphasize the Liberal position on this bill and take you through the lengthy process. Certainly our support has always been there for the concept of stable funding, but it's just how we reach it that has been of concern. Also, I want to take you through the lengthy process of finally getting this major piece of farm legislation to this point and then to share with all members of the Legislature some of the very interesting concerns and comments we heard during the two weeks of deliberations on the standing committee on resources development.

Our Liberal caucus has always supported the concept of stable funding. We feel it will allow the accredited general farm organizations to better provide education and analysis of farming issues. This is vitally important to the success of the agrifood industry in today's global economy. The world is different; the world is becoming increasingly competitive and complex.

I believe general interest farm organizations are necessary in order to have a balanced agricultural and food policy development. Agriculture in Ontario is a viable industry -- viable if its participants stay innovative and knowledgeable about all aspects that affect the business. General farm organizations provide that valuable assistance to individual farmers and to rural communities. They increase public awareness of agriculture and focus farm policy debates among farmers and public officials.

I've had the opportunity to attend some of these information nights and farm open house visits in Northumberland. They've always been most informative and go a long way in bringing urbanites into the 1990s type of agriculture.

Another area that is most impressive is the up-to-date lesson plans and materials for teachers that are now provided by the various ag awareness groups around the province. The group in Northumberland headed by Anne Burnham and her capable associates has done an excellent job, and they are always looking for new ways to promote agriculture. I know that with increased support even more could be accomplished. It can be an effective tool for getting the ag message out.

The work of general farm organizations creates benefits for all farmers. They provide a pipeline to the government by lobbying for orderly marketing, fair taxes, financial assistance programs, sensible land use and environmental policies. Since all farmers benefit from any advantageous results of the hard work and efforts, they feel, and rightfully so, that the cost of their work should be carried by all farmers.

Right now, approximately 20,000 of Ontario's 68,000 farmers directly support the work of general farm organizations. If the cost of such work were shared among all farmers who enjoy the benefits, a reasonable cost per farm operation would be then possible.

The difficulties facing agriculture continue to intensify. The individual farmer's ability to cope with issues is declining as markets become more international, and business success depends upon the management of information. The farm perspective needs study and explanation more than ever before. This implies a greater demand on the resources of farmers' associations.

Our previous Liberal government worked with the three general farm groups -- the OFA, the CFFO and the NFU -- in examining various proposals for obtaining fees and whether or not to make them mandatory. I will admit progress was slow in finding that appropriate model because it was hard to find an existing funding mechanism to attach a fee to that would apply to all farmers. However, our government was ready to proceed with stable funding legislation in 1990 and we assumed, as did the farming community, that stable funding would move forward with the NDP government. Finally, we are seeing that. At long last, after three years, we are going to see Bill 42 in legislation and hopefully in implementation soon.

When we look back over these three years, it took two years to introduce Bill 105; in November 1992, the minister introduced it, as we all remember, and we have to admit it was a rather feeble attempt to establish stable funding for the general farm organizations and was really so flawed and laden with bureaucracy that it really didn't see the light of day after first reading. In fact, it was so bad that the minister did draft a brand-new bill because of the outcry from the farming community, who felt betrayed by a minister who would encroach on their rights with the threat of fines and criminal-type penalties.

So you can imagine that there certainly was a level of mistrust placed in the minds of farmers, which I believe in some areas still remains in the minds of farmers, when such a major piece of legislation that would affect 65,000 farmers in Ontario was so badly flawed at first. We can see that certainly there are still groups out there that really do not trust the total intent of this bill, so I think it behooves us to now be very, very watchful as to what happens in the implementation.

But I feel confident that the two remaining farm organizations that are still in this piece of legislation, those being the CFFO and the OFA, will do everything possible to make sure that they reach out to all farmers, to make sure that all of the farmers realize the benefits of belonging to an organization that really basically wants to help farmers.

When the House resumed in March 1993, we in the Liberal caucus, and I'm sure those in the farming community, really did expect to see this bill come forward right away. We were all rather disappointed, because it did seem to be on a back burner. The government didn't call the House back, of course. We thought we were coming in March; we didn't come back until April, and then the bill didn't really seem to be a priority with the House leader. We would have thought, because of all the time that had elapsed --

Interjection: Remember Murray Elston?

Mrs Fawcett: We still have those asides from the third party that don't really mean too much, because when we know the truth we know that one person cannot stall anything. The government is in charge of its legislation, the government House leader is in charge of bringing forward the legislation, and it didn't happen.

1600

The government really could have been ready. It could have been ready when we resumed in April, but we really didn't see anything happen until June 3 and finally the major piece of farm legislation did come forward in the form of Bill 42. My colleagues and I were generally pleased with this bill and glad to see that the government had listened to us and had got rid of the unwanted bureaucracy and criminal penalties in the previous bill.

We were prepared to deal with this major piece of farm legislation as we would deal with any major piece of legislation through second reading, committee hearings and third reading debate. Knowing how anxious the general farm organizations were to have this bill proceed in an orderly fashion, we were sure it would be on the Orders and Notices paper the following day, but stalled again; not until July 21, some seven weeks later, Bill 42 appeared again.

This bill could have had second reading debate, gone out to committee and received third reading, had the government House leader brought it forward in an orderly fashion. When we did start second reading debate, there were no amendments brought forward by the government at that time, so I assume it just shelved this major piece of farm legislation for seven weeks because it wasn't a priority with the NDP government or its House leader.

I know, from a conversation with the deputy minister, that the NDP government wasn't really ready to implement the bill. She told me on July 20 that the registration form hadn't completed the design stage and that it still needed to be tested with farm groups before they could use it. But it didn't really mean that we had to wait seven weeks. In fact, some people who came before the committee might have been quite helpful in the design of the registration form for this major piece of legislation.

We then went out to committee on August 23 and finished the hearings and clause-by-clause by September 2. We assumed that this bill would proceed as scheduled and that when the House resumed on September 27, it would be before us. So here we are. Finally, on October 6, we're into the third and final reading. I'm very pleased that the minister did convince the House leader to bring it forward so that we can get into the implementation stage as quickly as possible.

As I've said before, the bill is vital to the voice of agriculture. Understandably, the general farm organizations are really very anxious, and it's interesting to see so many of them here today for this final reading. It is welcome to see them here and in support.

I'm sure that especially the Tory members will remember the voice of the OFA after the 1984 budget back in that time of Dennis Timbrell, the then Minister of Agriculture, and Larry Grossman as the Treasurer. I recall that in that budget, the Conservatives avoided any new funding to agriculture, and in an unprecedented move, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture called for the resignation of Mr Timbrell and Mr Grossman. It's always interesting to listen and hear the aside comments of some of the Tory members as to who stalls what and who is really interested in agriculture.

Even those working in the Deputy Premier's office at the time, I believe Carl Sulliman, who is the current director of the OFA, would remember the uproar that caused, not only in the farm community but I suspect in the halls of power as well. But I'm sure that the NDP government and the present Minister of Agriculture are not too anxious to hear that kind of voice again, and maybe that's why we've delayed the bill until now. At any rate, we are going to go forward.

I'd like to share with the members some of the many concerns and comments we heard at the standing committee on resources development, because I think a lot of those comments are very valuable and something that we should keep in mind. I will try also to highlight the views of the general farm organizations and groups that we heard.

Certainly one particularly memorable deputant was John Drudge and, I believe, his wife and son, who also appeared with him. I think it was quite interesting and memorable simply because it is not usual for them to come before a committee of the government. But they wanted us to be sure that we realized how they felt and why they were concerned.

I know that in the minister's opening statement at committee, before the committee began, he mentioned that the Mennonite community was in agreement with Bill 42 and that it was satisfied with the religious provisions provided in the bill. I think we on the committee were very surprised and almost taken aback when we found out that there was definitely a problem. Even the deputy minister had assured me, and I certainly believe she did everything possible when she went to meet with the elders, and I really believe that the minister and the deputy minister thought they had addressed the Mennonite concerns. But when we heard the testimony from Mr Drudge, the bishop, we learned that Bill 42 was in fact against their beliefs.

They told us about the 18 articles of their faith and the one about civil government, which to me is very interesting. They really believe that government is instituted by God and that government is to be respected and obeyed and honoured. They teach their people to obey the laws, ordinary government laws, so they want to be able to do that. I realize that there are many different sects to the Mennonite faith, but certainly when some of them looked at Bill 42, it was really going to be something that was of real concern to them. They assured us that if we could make a law that they could obey, they would do so, but as it stood, it really was against their beliefs. So it was very timely and of great importance that they came to us and put forward their beliefs.

Afterwards a letter was sent, I think the next day, and it further explained that the tribunal idea was not something that met the needs of the Mennonite and Amish people, and contrary to what Mr Buchanan had said in his address, it did not meet the needs because it did not exempt them from registration.

They also stated that as it stood now, if Bill 42 were passed and all farmers must register, then they couldn't conscientiously register, because they would be breaking their own laws, and yet they didn't want to break the law of a government, so it really put them in a corner.

1610

I know that it really made all of us think on the committee, and one part of the letter, if I could just read it, said: "We are pleading and pleading with you to make laws that we can obey. We are not asking for money. We simply plead with you to only make the kind of laws that we, as God-fearing people, can conscientiously support and live by."

The government did change that portion of the bill and I hope it now suits all of them because I firmly believe that this group is a very honest group. They want to do what is right, but they also have their own religious beliefs to live by. I haven't heard back from any of them, but I know that my colleague said he had been talking to them. Hopefully, we can keep that kind of dialogue up so that we can address the concerns that are out there.

Another area of controversy -- well, I don't suppose I should use the word "controversy," but "concern" -- was over the tribunal. That wonderful farmer from Mississauga North discovered that there was no appeal mechanism in the tribunal and that as far as he was aware and with his, I suppose we could say, legal farm mind, he looked at this very carefully and noted that most tribunals, in fact most of the ones he could think of, had some kind of appeal mechanism and yet there was not that kind of mechanism in this bill.

I know the minister has talked about it and the deputy minister, but we really feel strongly that there should be some group or body other than possibly the minister and other than expensive court processes, so that if a decision is made against someone -- for instance, if a group wanted to be accredited and the tribunal said, "No, that's it," maybe the tribunal -- we would hope they will always make very just and right decisions, but being human, sometimes things happen and maybe things were misinterpreted or whatever, so an appeal mechanism should be there. I hope that in the future we can carefully look at that and make sure that anyone who decides they have received a wrong decision can have someplace to go for a relook at the whole thing.

Also, I think my colleague has mentioned the review process, one of the final clauses of the bill. I know that in the original bill, Bill 105 -- I guess I would have to say that even though it was so badly flawed, that one section of that bill was something we definitely agreed with, that being that after three years, "the minister shall cause a review of the act to be conducted to determine whether it is advisable that the act continue in force."

We really had hoped that would remain in Bill 42 and in fact we've even made an amendment, changed it slightly, so that it didn't necessarily have to be the minister who would review it, but even a legislative committee, a standing committee of the Legislature, could look at it and review the program to see that everything is working properly. I think any bill needs to be reviewed. We need to look at it, and if there are parts that are not working, then change them for the betterment of the group that it's intended to serve. I would still like to see that a definite review is done at least every three years.

There are other issues of concern, certainly, like the length of time it will take for the return of cheques to those who don't wish to support the general farm organization. We had some discussion, and there were some for and against. There were people who didn't have any problem with the word "promptly," but then there were some who did and who would like to have seen an actual turnaround time stated clearly as to the numbers of days or weeks or whatever. That did not get addressed.

I just have to draw to the attention of the government that I know there was one section of the bill, I believe it was section 20, and it was certainly just by accident when it was left out of the legislation as to who the cheques should be going to. If I remember rightly, it was, "When filling out the form, provide to the ministry payment of the prescribed amount." All of a sudden I could foresee all the cheques going to the ministry instead of to the general farm organizations. I know that, to its credit, the government certainly decided it'd better change that very quickly. Things can be left out. Things can just inadvertently be not exactly what was intended.

So I really think that we should make sure that some of the words -- and since I'm talking about this word "promptly" here, we can hopefully trust that the general farm organizations will definitely make that turnaround time as quickly as possible for those people who are asking for their money back.

I have not seen a final draft of the registration form yet, but I hope that certainly will be made available soon and that it will not provide undue hardship on the farmers who, again, will be asked to fill out the registration form. Maybe it will cut down some of the paperwork that they have to continually fill out when applying for other associated programs and so on, where all the information it seems has to be reiterated again and again.

I'd like to now just address and share some of the information that came forward from the general farm organizations, some of which were very, very pleased and happy to be seeing the bill go forward. Of course, there were some concerns. Certainly it's nice to see members of the Christian Farmers here. I really think their submission towards a better-financed general farm organization definitely said it very well. They found that the rationales for stable funding are the ones that have been reiterated. Certainly they need to be better funded to provide better service, because of our increasingly technological and competitive world.

The whole idea around research is very, very important, and they stressed that there has to be money and the availability of money to go into research so that farmers can stay competitive in our world.

1620

The commodity organizations certainly have become more effective with their funding, and so it's only natural, then, that we would assume that our general farm organizations would really dramatically change with increased funding. Certainly there is, we have noticed in the last few years, a definite difference in the relationship between lobby groups and governments. It seems that the squeaky wheel gets the grease. In order to keep the Agriculture ministry viable, we need to make sure the Treasurer and the Premier realize that this is definitely an important part of government. Rather than cutting back programs, we want to see an increase of programs, and programs that will definitely assist farmers to be more competitive and to be viable, because certainly we are still hearing that it is very, very difficult for farmers to really make it without even extra, off-farm incomes. Anything that can help keep the farmers' voices heard at the government level is definitely going to be received well.

I think too that the Christian Farmers have definitely represented a separate group than maybe the OFA, but generally speaking their thrust is the same. Naturally, many people would like to think back to the old family farm concept, but it's a different family farm concept now. We need to really be sure that our organizations will be well funded and then can provide good service.

Certainly one group that I guess, unfortunately, is not too happy with this whole bill is the National Farmers Union. I think we generally were disappointed to have them withdraw, but they have their own reasons. Now we are left with just the two organizations. The National Farmers Union, I guess in no uncertain terms, put some of its democratic ideals forward and stated that it did not think this bill was democratic. I know they wished a vote and certainly expressed concerns very often. Peter Dowling is one person certainly still in touch with me. I do take what he says seriously and yet can't totally agree on all fronts.

One area, though, that I think really we should all consider is the fact that they really felt that they weren't invited to all of the meetings. I know explanations were given by the deputy and the minister and even the parliamentary assistant, but they really felt they were shut out of certain parts of the process.

To me, that is easily addressed: that in the future we make sure that people who wish to come to the meetings, people who wish to participate, people who wish to have input should really be heard. Whether or not the government believes it did everything possible, the perception out there was that because the NFU did not really go along with the government on the total bill, then it was just sort of ignored and wasn't always made aware of what was going on and the meetings.

I know they were also very concerned about the conflict of interest of some of the members of the committee. That definitely was addressed by the commissioner, Gregory Evans. I was thankful when direction was asked of him on whether or not members were in conflict, because it is serious business if members of the committee are perceived to be in conflict. He found that the members were not in conflict and that you could belong to an organization and still participate on the committee. But the perception is still out there. I received a letter from Glenn Coates which I sent over to the Conflict of Interest Commissioner. I think again the same result happened. He found that there was no conflict, but he was I think sufficiently disturbed that he has now sent out to all members of the Legislative Assembly a directive that it would be in the interests of everyone if at the beginning of committee hearings the Chair would ask if any member of the committee perceives or believes that they are in conflict, to so state. I think that certainly will be a beginning, anyway, to allay some of the fears around the conflict of interest, because that certainly is something that was out there and is not exactly resolved yet, according to the NFU group.

Certainly, the OFA has been there and has given us solid reasons why Bill 42 is going to provide some further help that is needed for it to do its job better and for farmers to benefit. I want to say that they have been forthcoming with statistics and information that we asked for along the way. From what I have seen, they really are there. As they say, they are farmers working for farmers and so they know what farmers need, and they are hopefully going to even enhance what they can now do to make sure that all farmers will benefit from Bill 42.

They get involved in any area that really affects farmers, whether it be international trading rules -- and I have the article from the OFA that states just all of the good things that it thinks farmers want and all of the different areas that it gets into, whether it be landfill, land use, farm labour relations, the Canadian identification of domestic agricultural products, the commitment by all governments to the future of farming, and so on. They do so much. So I think we are very happy that now we will be able to see just what they can accomplish.

I have to mention too the Silent Majority, which came before us. They really did try to put forward their thoughts and goals. They have two main goals: to create an opportunity to educate and inform farmers about stable funding and to ultimately create a situation where stable funding is decided by a free vote for Ontario farmers. I know they really tried to put this forward, and they had some good points; there's no doubt about it. I know they are disappointed; there is no doubt about that. Certainly the member for Chatham-Kent has been a champion of their cause, and I'm sure they'll be continuing --

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): My cause.

Mrs Fawcett: Your cause? All right, if you wish: your cause. I hope that maybe, as time goes on, they will not be as suspicious, that they will see that maybe some of their fears were unfounded; that democracy is there and will be proven.

1630

I would be remiss if I did not mention my own Northumberland OFA, which came before the committee and made presentation. Northumberland has a very strong OFA, which does a lot of very, very good work. I think other areas could benefit from the way they handled this whole stable funding issue.

A lot of people thought there was inadequate consultation, that the consultation out there just didn't happen. We've heard there were 14 meetings; however, they felt that some of the meetings maybe were even staged. I would like to put on the record again how they used their own meetings -- they have 12 of them a year -- to discuss issues, and they certainly thoroughly discussed the stable funding issue. Six of those meetings were open to the public, to all farmers, so they didn't close anybody out, anyone who was interested in stable funding. They made it known that this would be discussed at their meetings. They were constantly trying to get the message out.

They also have what they call summit meetings. In addition to their own 12 meetings, they have summit meetings, which involves eight counties getting together to discuss issues. To me, that's the OFA working at the grass-roots level. Hopefully, now, with extra support, they will be able to provide even more available information and discussions to the whole farm community.

In closing, I would like to say that we in the Liberal caucus want to see a strong, vibrant agricultural industry flourishing in Ontario. We realize that we must all work together to meet the challenge of producing enough food with sufficient return for the farmer. We want to work in partnership with the farming community and all of the farm organizations and groups to ensure that they have the resources they need to make certain of the survival of the family farm throughout difficult times ahead.

I guess I'd just close by saying that a lot of people may think that some of the cows have been left out of the barn on this one, but I think we feel that the main herd is secure in this bill, so the Liberal caucus will certainly be supporting Bill 42.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret Harrington): I thank the member for Northumberland for her remarks. Now we have time for questions and/or comments. Is there anyone who would like to participate? Seeing none, I would ask if there are any more members who wish to participate in the debate.

Mr Villeneuve: First of all, Madam Speaker, let me congratulate you officially from my seat down here in the Legislature on your appointment to share the Speaker's chair with yours truly and the Deputy Speaker and the Speaker. I wish you well and I hope the days are not too stormy when you're in that very special seat.

First, I want to say that our party will be supporting Bill 42. Bill 42 has been in the gristmill for a very long time. I certainly want to commend the official opposition for its input, and I want to commend the minister and his parliamentary assistants for having done what I feel is a fairly good job in a situation where, agriculture being the type of industry it is, it's simply impossible to keep everyone happy all of the time.

We have many commodity groups and they're well represented; they represent their fine, narrow line of commodity very well. But we need a large umbrella group to speak for agriculture as a whole. I think the general farm organizations, as they have now been set up, as much as they may not be perfect, are as good as we could find in this rather imperfect world of difficulties.

Let me tell you, and I have never hidden the fact, that I am a card-carrying member of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and have been for many years. I certainly appreciate seeing a former president of the OFA here with us today, Mrs Brigid Pyke. The very first time I met this lady was on a certain committee called the tax and assessment committee some 15 years ago. The main problem there was attempting to correct the inequities within the taxation system at the farm real estate level. I can tell you without hesitation that we worked on that committee quite extensively, attempting to lock into place a situation where the Ontario farm tax rebate would have been taken off at the source; in other words, farmers would not have been required to pay and then be reimbursed.

It came this close to being law. However, certain farmers within the province of Ontario saw the right and privilege of paying their taxes as sacred. We respected that, and therefore the farm tax rebate stayed in place as it was, with the reimbursement, excepting for the house and one acre of land, varying from 100% to 75%, and deviations and variations thereof.

It was interesting that the Liberals, during their time, made some political statements. I won't be very political, other than to say that the predecessor of the very honourable member for Brant-Haldimand was the former Treasurer of the province of Ontario, and he reduced the farm tax rebate considerably. I believe that may be the reason why quite a number of NDP members in this Legislature from southwestern Ontario came to be elected. Maybe if we had had a GFO back then, it would have saved the Liberals; they might still be the government. However, that was not to be.

Getting away from the political aspect, agriculture in the province of Ontario employs, directly and indirectly, some 20% of the population when we consider the production end of things, the processing end of things, the trucking, the manufacturing, the entire food industry. Without people to produce this food, we don't have that industry which employs, directly and indirectly, 20%. In my opinion and in the opinion of many people in this Legislature -- not everyone -- it's the most important industry within this province. We have the ability to produce well above our requirements to feed the 10 million people within this province. We need the monetary incentives.

1640

I must sympathize a bit with the Minister of Agriculture and Food, and it's rather strange coming from one who is considered to be one of his critics. Within the government of Ontario in the past two years, we have seen the budget for the Ministry of Agriculture and Food cut by 10% per year over the last two fiscal years, the last two budgetary years of this province, to where it is very little more than 1% of the entire budget of the province of Ontario.

That includes $159 million being returned to the farmers of Ontario in the scheme known as the farm tax rebate. You take away that $159 million, which in my opinion should never have been paid in the first place, and we have a very small portion of the $53 billion that is allocated as the budget for the province of Ontario going to those who produce the food. It's a very important aspect.

We often see people in downtown Toronto who don't understand the food production end of things complaining about the food producers. If they only knew a little bit about the very important aspect that production has, particularly in this part of North America where we have a frost-free period in the area where I live from May 10 to September 12. That's the official statistic. It's a very short period of time in which to produce a crop and have it ready for human consumption.

These are some of the major dilemmas that are faced by our agricultural producers.

The forms that are going to be implemented by the ministry, and we've seen them, as far as I'm concerned are user-friendly. I think it was very important to have application forms that would not be complicated, would be user-friendly and would be general in nature while still producing enough information for the ministry to provide farmers, food producers, with the statistics that it is very important to have.

We have many agricultural programs. The farm tax rebate probably is the most important, but we have many other farm programs oriented towards agriculture. If we don't have representation from the Christian Farmers and from the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, and I was sorry to see the National Farmers Union drop off because I think that would have been a fairly good team for a general farm organization, to speak on behalf of the 2% or less of the population in Ontario who are known as the food producers -- it's much more complicated than many people would even attempt to understand, the research that has to go on, the implications.

I'll simply use one example. It's a bill that was brought in here recently that will be providing an Environmental Bill of Rights. I think it's very important that agriculture have major input into a bill that will provide an Environmental Bill of Rights. Certainly, I commend the government; it did have representation there, with input to protect and to at least look after the interests of the food producers.

We always find it rather ironic when some of the so-called environmentalists talk in downtown Toronto about the natural way of producing food, but they get out into rural Ontario and at this time of the year there happen to be manure piles that are being removed from where they were all summer, back into the field, and that creates quite an odour. That is a very natural way of producing food, going back to basics. These environmentalists are the first to say, "Oh, my, can you smell this pollution?" Well, I'm sorry, that's not pollution. That is the natural phenomenon of returning fertilizer to the soil.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): Quite natural.

Mr Villeneuve: The Minister of Education and Training is questioning. I tell you, Mr Minister, that I happen to live in that environment, and when some of my city cousins come to visit us on Sunday afternoon, they say, "My, my, my, this is a terrible odour." Well, that's the farm, and if you choose to live in that environment, that is not pollution. As far as I'm concerned, that is doing what is very natural and normal, returning natural fertilizer to the soil to produce a crop the following year.

The GFOs will have much to do. It's interesting that while we debate many bills here, many of them touch agriculture in a direct and sometimes somewhat indirect fashion. If organizations such as the Christian Farmers and the Ontario Federation of Agriculture were not there to provide us, the elected people, with the implications and ramifications of certain legislative projects, we may not be aware of the full impact that these would have.

Certainly we, the elected people, appreciate having the GFOs as we've known them, and as they become more and more involved in providing information to the government of the day and to the opposition regarding the aspects that touch agricultural and rural life.

The Sewell report is another one that will have far-reaching effects on agriculture.

Again, I go back to the Environmental Bill of Rights. Many people will be able to take their neighbour to court based on the Environmental Bill of Rights, but the government is excluded. I know the bill of rights refers back to the Farm Practices Protection Act and it's still a very grey area, but we have to have a strong voice speaking for that very small percentage of Ontarians who are out in the barns and in the fields doing what they do best, and that is producing food.

The amendments to the labour laws, Bill 91, are of concern to me, and certainly again our GFOs will have to be vigilant when this type of legislation comes in, because farmers are in a rather unique position where in most cases they have very little to say about the value of their product at the farm gate and very little to say about their cost of production. It's a bind and it's a rather unique type of business to be in. Many of them produce food, many of them are in competition with one another, and what's good for one neighbour is not necessarily good for the other. That's what makes the dichotomy of attempting to represent agriculture as a whole a most difficult one, and I think we have the best mechanism possible in an imperfect world.

Yes, we have heard from a number of individuals and individuals who represented groups that were totally against any sort of legislation, and certainly we as a caucus and I as an individual appreciate that. However, again we look at the pros and cons, and in my humble opinion we need representation, the type of representation that will be occurring through the GFOs.

My colleagues from the Liberal Party talked about some of the amendments. Yes, we provided some of the amendments as well, which the government did not see fit to support. So be it, because they do have a majority in this Legislature and they have a majority in committees. As we voted, it was rather interesting to see that yes, they were to some degree agreeable to some of the amendments that we had put forth; however, not quite agreeable enough to support them. That's the way it is.

Several amendments that were spoken of spoke about the religious objection, and my colleagues in the Liberal Party also spoke of that. Yesterday, I received a letter from Bishop John Drudge, who is from the Amish-Mennonite community. I know we will have very little input, other than possibly what's in Hansard, in formulating the regulations, but I think it most important that this be on the record. The request here is rather simple and it's signed, again, by Bishop John Drudge, RR 2, Wroxeter, Ontario, and reads as follows:

1650

"Would it be possible to have a committee of three of us Mennonite-Amish leaders meet the tribunal on behalf of all the Mennonite-Amish community of Ontario, present a list of names and addresses of Mennonite-Amish farmers, verifying that those named are indeed members of the Mennonite-Amish churches and are conscientiously opposed to registration and funding with lobby groups under Bill 42? I believe that is something that could and should be included. We could present to the tribunal an annual report, in person or in writing, of new farmers starting up and of retiring farmers."

At present, Bishop Drudge is on a three-man committee representing a number of Mennonite-Amish churches to keep their people informed of the progress of Bill 42. The bishop continues:

"We personally know most of the Mennonite-Amish leaders in Ontario and would be able to have contact with the ones we don't know personally. This same committee could take the added responsibility of being a contact for the government and the tribunal on behalf of the Mennonite-Amish community."

The bishop concludes with his suggestions.

"(1) Ensure the government and the tribunal that only genuine Mennonite-Amish farmers are indeed in the exemptions to Bill 42.

"(2) Greatly relieve all Mennonite-Amish farmers and leaders of the enormous cost and inconvenience of personal annual trips to Toronto to meet with the tribunal and to prove what can and should be done by the three-person committee representing the Mennonite-Amish communities."

I certainly commend the government for having met the requirements of the Mennonite-Amish community as we went through and as we discussed the clause-by-clause in the committee. I believe if this were included in the regulations -- and I realize that you want to leave the tribunal with sufficient flexibility to be able to operate, but I think this is not an unreasonable request and I think it should be looked at in a positive fashion.

The seven-person tribunal will be appointed by the government of Ontario, hopefully after some recommendations by community leaders in the rural and agricultural areas. I'm quite sure the minister will take into consideration many of the suggestions that come forth from the general farming community. However, one item that I had some great difficulty with is item 29, which says, "A decision of the tribunal is final."

I guess that within the legal context of the bill that is correct. However, it is not correct in that individuals or groups would have recourse to the courts and to the Ombudsman, to name at least two. I simply suggested during committee that the decision of the tribunal may be final as far as the tribunal goes, but indeed that is not the case, because there will be avenues beyond the tribunal itself and the general farm organizations.

That stands as it was and continues, but I want to make sure it's on the record that if indeed a tribunal decision goes against an individual or a group of individuals and they feel aggrieved, they do have the courts of the land, they do have the Ombudsman and the Ombudsman's committee, to name at least two alternatives.

In respect to item 33, "After three years have elapsed since the coming into force of this act, the minister may have a review of the act to determine whether it is advisable that the act continue in force," I simply want to reiterate that this is a new creature of government, one that will be roaming the rural routes of Ontario for the first time, and we just don't know what will transpire. I would have felt more comfortable had we been able to set up within the confines of this legislation a vehicle by which at the end of three years a standing committee of the Legislature could have received input from those who were aggrieved by this general farm organization or those who felt as individuals that they were not dealt with fairly, those who do not feel that, if they want to be reimbursed their registration fee, the timeliness may or may not be what they felt.

There may not be any problems. If there were no problems, it would simply be a matter that, "We've had a committee, it was available for those who were aggrieved or unhappy and we had no takers." That's fair game. Then this committee could have reported to the Minister of Agriculture and Food stating that there are no problems or that there are some problems or that there are major problems, and then the minister would have had the last word as to whether we should reopen Bill 42 to correct the inequities. If it were running so smoothly, and let's hope it is, that there are no problems, well, then we simply continue.

However, this again was defeated. It was slightly different from the request in the amendment by my Liberal colleagues, who wanted it to come back to the Legislature. We simply think this belongs with the Minister of Agriculture and Food, and the committee would have reported to the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

I have about half a dozen of my colleagues and, I appreciate, probably some of the government members who want to put some of their concerns on the record. Many of the things that I was to put on the record were already done by my colleagues in the Liberal party, so I will simply say that I am glad to see this day come when agriculture will have a strong voice by people out in rural Ontario speaking on their behalf in order to protect the interests of those who farm and those who produce the food for us, the population of Ontario, and for many others beyond our borders.

The Acting Speaker: I thank the member for S-D-G & East Grenville for his contribution this afternoon. We do have time for questions and/or comments.

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): In response to the remarks of the member, and in fact to those of the previous two members who have spoken on this bill, I think that each one of them has referred to the 25 years of controversy leading to a stable funding bill for general farm organizations. It's very clear that some of that controversy is still underlying the atmosphere and the development of this bill.

It seems to me that while the members have all, I think, in their remarks given recognition to some of the very positive work of general farm organizations, I'm most particularly familiar with the work done by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, since I'm hounded by one of the executive members who comes from my own county. But certainly the Christian Farmers organization keeps me and many other members of the Legislature up to date with the work that they are doing within their own organizations.

We have seen that kind of work in our own communities, whether it's land stewardship issues, conservation issues, marketing issues, environmental issues, which the member raised, or animal welfare and taxation issues, which have been raised by all of the speakers so far. One of the things that I believe we are going to be seeing, however, is an increased demand for accountability, not only in the financial affairs of the organization but in terms of how the organizations themselves approach the use of the resources in terms of leading to a more competitive advantage, marketability, and bringing to the attention of the public the issues affecting the farm community. I believe that what we will see from farmers themselves, as 65,000 people will be registered under the GFOs, will be value for money and an accountability requirement that may itself be as useful as any legislative review.

1700

The Acting Speaker: Are there other members who would wish to respond?

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I will not take two minutes to respond. I just want to commend and congratulate the member for S-D-G & East Grenville for his outstanding presentation this afternoon and for his consistently eloquent work on behalf of the farmers of Ontario. I certainly appreciate it, the farmers in Wellington county appreciate it, and I just want to demonstrate to all the House and thank the member for his outstanding work on behalf of agriculture in Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: Are there any further members who wish to participate? Seeing none, the member for S-D-G & East Grenville has two minutes to respond.

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): Madam Speaker, I wish to --

The Acting Speaker: Oh, we do have one more person.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: No? Okay, the member --

Mr Eddy: Over the protests of those who don't wish me to speak, I assure you I will be --

The Acting Speaker: I have not yet recognized the member. I will recognize the member for Brant-Haldimand.

Mr Eddy: Madam Speaker, thank you very much for recognizing me. I'm sorry I wasn't in my seat at the time; I should have been, of course. I have been attending all afternoon. Apologies to those who object on the other side, but perhaps the opportunity may arise when I will be able to give you the same courtesy.

I want to welcome the members of the farm organizations who are here today because we in agriculture owe them a great debt of gratitude, there's no doubt about that, for the work they've done on behalf of agriculture over the years, and I am one of those. The members for Cornwall and Northumberland, both of whom are involved in agriculture, have given the pros and cons of the bill and expressed their concerns about the bill and what it does and what it provides. Indeed that is the democratic process, and of course it's not just for us here; although I must say, it's very educational when I sit in on any of the debates to hear the various viewpoints. It is the democratic process. Indeed, a great many of my constituents from time to time comment on the basis of what they see here in the Legislature. I think that's important.

The member for S-D-G & East Grenville made some comments about what happened previously. Of course, the matter of the farm tax rebate has been of great concern to many. There was a proposal to deduct it at source, and that's great. The part of it that I disagree with is taking it out of the OMAF budget, because I think OMAF funds are the most important of all, for the research projects etc, and I want those to continue.

The Acting Speaker: We do have time for one more participant. If not, the member for S-D-G & East Grenville has two minutes to respond.

Mr Villeneuve: I want to thank the honourable members who have replied, and I won't take up a lot of time. It's simply been an exercise in attempting to clarify a number of situations in this bill. I was certainly very pleased and proud to be part of it.

The member for Brant-Haldimand, who comes from a very rural community, was very helpful. The member for Halton Centre certainly realizes what agriculture's all about, and I want to thank her for participating. My colleague from Wellington is in a large rural agricultural community where there are quite a number of Mennonite and Amish people, and certainly we have attempted to protect them as much as possible, because it is only fair that they also receive whatever government support is available to other farmers in agriculture and that their religion not be an impediment to them obtaining what is available and indeed their part of being good farmers.

To all of my colleagues, thank you very much. To Elbert van Donkersgoed out there, it's great to see you with us, and to the members of the OFA who are here, thank you for being with us.

The Acting Speaker: Are there further members who wish to participate?

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): On a point of privilege, Madam Speaker: We allowed the Liberals' two leadoff speakers to go back to back. I would ask for consent of the House for the same to be awarded to our party, that I may be able to continue now.

The Acting Speaker: I would have to ask for unanimous consent from the House. Is it agreed? It is agreed. I will recognize the member for Simcoe East.

Mr McLean: I thank the members for allowing me to proceed. I want to welcome the groups that are here today watching the debate on Bill 42 and I welcome the opportunity to put a few remarks on the record.

I will be giving my support in principle to the government's second attempt. I want to say that Bill 42 was introduced and received first reading on June 3, 1993, and second reading on July 21.

It is supposed to: provide a funding mechanism for the general farm organizations in Ontario; permit the GFOs to concentrate their efforts on research, education and providing policy advice to government; provide a common voice for producers through effective representation and influence on their behalf; contribute to the stability of agriculture in Ontario, which in turn helps to sustain economically viable farm and rural communities; and also improve the ability of the government to develop and implement effective agriculture support and development programs.

I suspect that everyone in here is aware that in November 1992, Bill 105, the Farm Organizations Funding Act, was introduced and received first reading. Its passage did not occur and it was carried over to the next session for second reading. It did not pass for some very good reasons, and I'll talk about that shortly.

Following introduction, the Minister of Agriculture and Food backed off somewhat and announced that changes would be made to the bill. One of these changes involved dropping the provincial offence provision if a farm business does not register and pay its fee. He later announced that rather than implementing a mandatory registration system and fee payment, a refund would be issued to those farm businesses that did not want to support one of the three accredited GFOs at that time.

There was a massive public outcry over Bill 105 because there was no doubt in anyone's mind that the NDP government was peddling a piece of flawed legislation. Immediate and strong opposition from grass-roots Ontario farmers, the NDP's own provincial council and the two opposition parties brought this bill down and prevented the quick passage the Minister of Agriculture had hoped for. The minister was then forced to return to the drawing board, and on June 3 he returned to the Legislature with a new and improved version, which he called Bill 42.

I believe people should take note of the 10 principal elements of Bill 42, which include the following provisions:

It would require the mandatory registration of each farm business in Ontario with greater than $7,000 in gross farm income, including individuals, partnerships and corporations.

It would require, as part of this registration process, the farm business to provide the ministry a cheque payable to an accredited farm organization in the amount of $150. It would give each farm business the option to request a refund from the appropriate general farm organization, and it would also allow people who have a religious objection to paying fees to a GFO to apply for an exemption.

They also want to establish a farm registration database system for Ontario farm businesses. It would permit access to certain programs, such as the farm tax rebate program, only to those who have a valid registration number with the ministry.

They also want to establish the Farm Organizations Accreditation Tribunal, with the power to accredit organizations applying for status as general farm organizations and hear applications from religious objectors.

1710

It would require that each organization seeking to be accredited apply for renewal of accreditation every three years and establish to the satisfaction of the tribunal that it continues to meet its criteria for accreditation, and provide for the funding of an eligible farm organization that serves the interests of francophone farmers and offers its services to farm businesses in the French language.

Once again the NDP government has brought forward a piece of legislation that people either love or hate. There appears to be no middle ground.

For instance, Joe Daunt Jr, chairman of the Silent Majority of Listowel, calls Bill 42 "a dangerous piece of legislation which has been brought forward to appease the lobby of a small group who represent a minority of Ontario farmers." He concludes that "the issue of stable funding will remain contentious until it is settled by a free and democratic vote of all farmers."

On the other hand, we have Arend Streutker, president of the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario in Guelph, who is on record as welcoming the legislation for a mandatory farm business registration and the refundable farm organization fee. The CFFO has stated that Bill 42 "sets the stage for a greater ability for farmers to decide the future direction of Ontario agriculture. It is very timely, as it is clear that government deficits must soon result in government doing less."

It is my understanding that the Ontario Federation of Agriculture has also thrown its support very strongly behind this legislation.

It is also my understanding that the Ontario division of the National Farmers Union, designated as an accredited organization under this legislation, was extremely angry that it was not invited to a meeting on June 2 with the ministry to discuss the introduction of the new legislation when the OFA and CFFO were both invited.

This fact alone points out that the NDP government likes to say it consults with all interested parties when it is considering legislation; it may like to consult, but I'm sure it isn't listening to what it's being told, or it likes to consult only those groups or individuals who support its policies and programs. This is not a consultation process; that's a selection process. That's not democracy; that's dictatorship.

Many farmers I have talked to suspect that Bill 42 means the NDP government, has a secret agenda, that it will use this legislation to collect names, addresses and telephone numbers, as well as information related to farm income and operations. They are concerned that they will not have any control over who gets this information or for what purpose. It is used at a time in their lives when freedom of information and protection of privacy appears to be slipping through our hands.

It should be noted that when the standing committee on resources development spent the weeks of August 23 and 30 considering Bill 42, hearings from witnesses and engaging in clause-by-clause discussion, all parties, including the government, presented amendments. The NDP amendments generally dealt with administrative procedures and terminology and all were passed by the NDP-dominated committee.

The major Progressive Conservative technical amendment was to specify a 30-day time limit for agricultural organizations to provide requested refunds. That was voted down on the basis that the bill already contained wording which would generally assure prompt payment without actually specifying a time limit. I heard the minister speak about that today and he assured us that the 30-day time limit would be there. That is what we were looking for.

There were other major amendments that were made, and what we tried to do was to make the legislation better and a little freer. When we look at the problems that there could be, if there are problems with the bill after three years, political pressure will force the minister to conduct a public review.

Following pressure from both our party and the Liberals, the ministry arrived at a full religious exemption clause which was supported unanimously by the committee. After clause-by-clause discussion and amendments, the entire committee voted for the bill as it was amended.

Even though the government rode to power on the backs of Ontario's farmers, it has tended to ignore their desperate situation. The NDP fails to realize that poverty is just as much a rural issue as it is an urban issue.

We urge the party in government to do things that people request without pressure.

The regulations: The minister spoke about the regulations today. We have not seen what's going to be in those regulations and how they are going to be used.

There have been some questions that have been asked with regard to the farm organizations. How is this money going to be spent when you get it? Nobody has answered that question.

I had an interesting conversation today with my son at noonhour. My son is an OFA member. I asked him if he knew about Bill 42. Obviously the answer that he gave me wasn't what I was expecting. He said he did not know anything about it at all. I'm wondering how many other farmers out there who are milking cows daily do not know what's going on with regard to Bill 42. I say to the people in charge, who are responsible, are the people being informed?

I today had the opportunity to have a chat with the president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture organization, who was not very happy with the legislation. As I said earlier on, there are people who love it and there are people who hate it. Those people are telling me that there is still a concern out there, and when I talked to my son, who is an OFA member, and he knew nothing about Bill 42 -- some people will say, "Well, he's not keeping up on what's going on."

Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): He's not concerned about it.

Mr McLean: That's fine. How many people who have taken part in this debate are actually milking cows night and morning and farming who do know what's going on? I say to you, Madam Speaker, there perhaps could be some better cooperation with regard to the groups that are participating to really know what the farmers want.

There's another problem that I have seen and I want to bring it to the attention of this House. The county of Simcoe pays about $29,000 to the federation of agriculture in that county each year. Is that $29,000 the county pays going to continue? Are the funds that are going to come in to the OFA going to be part now that are going to go to the county? Are the funds going to come back to that county OFA? I have never read or seen what percentage of the $150 will come back. I haven't seen it discussed in committee.

I'm raising these issues with you because I think it's important that they be addressed. The minister may have the opportunity to address it in the form of a regulation; that may help. What if the farmers are asked to register with the government without $150 for the fee?

I want to say that there's some concern, that there has been discussion, that there has been a hidden agenda. I'm not so sure what the hidden agenda is. It was brought to me today by a farmer that the registration of employees to help unionize farm workers may be one of the hidden agendas. When they send out the application to fill in to apply, are there going to be questions on that questionnaire, "How many farm employees do you have?" or what are the questions going to be?

These are some of the questions that have been asked and I think are appropriate to have put on the record, because our part in this legislation, as opposition parties, is -- we know when the government brings legislation in, it has the numbers to bring in what it wants. It's our job to try to help make that legislation better. My colleague Noble Villeneuve, our critic for Agriculture, did that. The critics for the Liberal Party tried to do that. We didn't get what we wanted. We felt there would have been more open debate with regard to the form and being reviewed in three years. The minister did not want that to happen. Our job is to try and make it happen.

Then we look at some of the farm tax rebates and you could go on and on in the debate. But I wanted to put some of these things on the record because I believe it's gone on for a long time to get some way for the farm organizations and the ministry to cooperate. I think it's a step in the right direction, but I'm not so sure that we've fully heard the concerns of the people out there.

The Acting Speaker: Are there any questions and/or comments? Seeing none, are there any further speakers who wish to participate in the debate?

Mr Hope: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and congratulations on the appointment to the high chair, I guess you would call it.

I'm interested in being part of this debate because I've heard some of the rhetoric that has been said across about the NDP. I must say that I've been one of the only ones who have been very vocal on this issue, vocal on the issue because at the outset I'll declare my conflict of interest. My conflict of interest is that I'm opposed to the legislation that is being proposed in Bill 42.

I just want to outline some of the things. We were talking about the agricultural community being well aware of what's going on with Bill 42. Unfortunately, this is cablecast and unfortunately in rural communities the farmers we're talking about do not have access to cable TV, so they don't have the accessibility of watching this debate and understanding what is actually going on.

1720

What I must bring out are some of the issues that are brought out in my community. We have letters to the editor that were published. First of all, before I get to the letter to the editor, I've done a positive thing in the community. I brought the issue to the farmers, held a public information about the bill and allowed the members of my community to participate in that debate, whether it was representatives from the OFA, the NFU or the Christians. We also made sure that it was done in a non-political sense, that what we were there to do was to listen to what was going on in the community.

I also referred to a letter that was in the Voice of the People in the Chatham Daily News, one of the fine papers in our community, I must say. This person who wrote in, who is a farmer, an older adult, says it reminds him of the situation in the southern United States in the 1950s and the 1960s when the black population, who were the majority, had the right to register as voters but did not have the right to vote.

"However, after a long and hard struggle, Martin Luther King Jr came to the scene and eventually the black population finally got the right to vote if they had the courage to face the abuse they encountered when trying to exercise that right. The black population at that time were family farmers, farm workers, as are 95% of the Ontario farmers who cannot vote on stable funding, Bill 42. Maybe the Ontario farmers need a Martin Luther King Jr to lead them from possible poverty to democratic rights."

It also goes on to talk about the bureaucracy, the privilege of creating rules and regulations it wishes to do so, which we find in this bill.

One of the things I want to do is highlight specifics of the bill. I want to talk about the preamble that is in with the explanatory note. One of the important parts of it says, "Only a...person, other than someone who has received a waiver from registering, is entitled to benefit from certain programs of or subsidies from the ministry." That means that if farmers are not registered, they will not receive the programs that are there today, and possibly in the future, as we try to deal with the crunch that is facing the farmers in our communities.

I know that in my conversations with the farmers in my communities they're not looking for farm subsidies. What they're looking for is farm-gate pricing, and that's exactly what they're trying to get across in their endeavours, to try to make sure that agriculture has prosperity. If we all reflect and talk about economic renewal in rural Ontario, it was the agricultural community that stimulated and created our small towns, our hamlets and our small cities, creating prosperity that we had and that we are losing because of policies that are created by the federal government. Those policies also are affecting the farmers in my community.

I want to talk about the tribunal process, which is to hold hearings of accredited farm organizations. In the section in the bill, and I believe it's section 7 which gives the accredited farm organizations title and identity for three years. There is the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario and also the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. In the section that follows below that it talks about where no review can be done of these farm organizations. Section 8(3) says: "An organization named in section 7 cannot be reviewed during the three years of deemed accreditation."

One of the concerns I've raised in talking to some of the people is about those farm organizations being accredited and having policies that are in violation of the Human Rights Code. Yet they say that the law that is in here is no violation of the Human Rights Code, and I agree with them: There are no violations in this law of the Human Rights Code. But what about the policies of some organization that is accredited that has an issue that is against the Human Rights Code? Where is the ability of those people who wish to join that farm organization to take this before the tribunal? There is no process that allows that, and I know through some conversations that Ian Scott, when he was the Attorney General when the Liberals were trying to figure this stable funding out, had problems with that section also, because it was one that created very difficult situations for people to access the human rights that they deserve.

Also, the issue of payment and return of payment: I've heard the members opposite talk about how the NDP are going to use them to find out how many family farms are out there and how many they can organize and all that good stuff. I want to make it clear that what I've heard from a lot of farmers is that if it's to be a truly voluntary process, then why can't it be a voluntary process at the kitchen table? When they're making the decision, why take the $150 out of the pockets of the farmers, put it into a farm organization and ask them to turn around again and write a letter? We heard the member opposite talk about being in the fields and milking cows. You're going to have to allow more time for the farmers to make sure they send their forms back in asking for their refund.

I also have a fear that when a person does ask for the refund back, one of those organizations will be at the door of those individuals. If a letter goes to the farm organization asking for a refund, you can guarantee there will be a member of one of those associations who will be at the door asking those members, or potential members, why they wish their money back. We could lead into the possibility of coercion that could be there, of people feeling intimidated in asking for the money back and intimidated in having a representative at their kitchen table, pressuring them into pursuing and joining that membership and leaving that money there. It draws very dear concerns of a lot of farmers about their privileges and rights. That may be why we heard the call for the vote from the farmers.

I believe in putting in a true prospect of "voluntary." That is to make the farmers and the farm families have the availability of registering with a farm organization voluntarily at the kitchen table, instead of processing a cheque, holding it on their finance books and then waiting for that refund.

The other fear that I have is one of a political nature. What if a farmer or a farm family is not able to get back their money right away? They're going to be calling my office, asking me to intervene, to make sure I can get their 150 bucks back for them. Well, guess what? I have no rights allowing me the opportunity to access that and to act on behalf of my constituents to make sure that money is returned. That is a true fear, because they're going to say: "It's your government that brought the legislation in. It's your responsibility to get my $150 back." It is a very deep concern of mine, and I wouldn't want to take $150 out of a farmer's pocket, because I understand the need that's there.

I also question the availability of farm organizations to prove themselves to their membership. I come from the labour movement. With that labour movement background, we had to prove ourselves to our membership. We had to increase their standard of living, we had to improve their benefit programs and we also had to represent their best interests. If we didn't, what they did was to decertify from us. What is not here is allowing the farm organizations to prove themselves to the membership -- that is, the farmers out there -- that they're worth the $150 being sent to them. That is a specific concern of a number of the farmers.

The revoking: We heard from members opposite saying that refunds will be done within an appropriate time. I wait to see those times and see what the return is. I heard from the committee too. I was not an acting member on the committee, but I did make myself available, representing my constituents and being there during the hearing process.

I also wanted to focus on the religious aspect. I've heard members opposite. I was able to bring it forward on behalf of the Mennonite community, making this issue well known to it, the tribunal itself, the makeup of the tribunal. One thing we must be very careful of this time -- we weren't very careful during the committee, which led into questions from those who made presentations -- is about conflict of interest. We found out that members had affiliations to the farm organizations that were in this legislation and there were a number of questions raised by the general public, whether or not it was a conflict of interest.

It was referred to the commissioner for his ruling. But one thing I must make sure of about the tribunal, and I emphasize this to the minister, is let's make sure that those members who make up the tribunal are not affiliated with any farm organization whatsoever and that they have an independent view of the process to allow the tribunal to work in its most capable way.

The other concern that was brought out about the tribunal having the power to determine whether somebody actually has a religious belief or a really religious cause. One of the farmers who talked to me about it said, "What made the tribunal the almighty God?"

The other thing is that those who are on the tribunal, the parties opposed to the application -- people can oppose the application, which is in the legislation, of somebody's right because of religious affiliation.

The information that will be flowed to the ministry -- and I must say, there is a part of the legislation that I do agree with. I do agree with allowing this government and any other government that supersedes to have the availability of information to provide for a forum and put policy forward that will represent the best interests of farmers. I think that information will be coming, and I believe even the letter to the editor also indicated that there is wide support for a farm registry to make sure we can implement good policies that represent farmers.

1730

A number of things are left to regulation, which leads to a number of concerns that farmers have about the process. The section about the regulations, 32.12, says "respecting criteria for eligibility for special funding." There are some questions about whether that special funding is for any farm organization or whether it's specifically talking about the francophone organizations.

The other part is, how do farmers actually have input into the regulations for developing the criteria that will be used for accreditation of farm organizations? Are we going to let the farm organizations develop the criteria or are the farmers going to have input into the process of developing the criteria that will establish an accredited farm organization?

I must raise those issues that have been brought forward to me by a number of farmers in my community and also throughout this province, because I've heard the rhetoric that has been put forward. Silence was being put forward by the Liberals; silence was being put forward by the Conservatives. I even noticed that my colleague the other day put forward petitions at the plowing match, ballots that were opposed, petitions that were opposed. The member for Grey -- you're not supposed to mention his name, Bill Murdoch -- I know your neighbour is going to be very interested to find out where you stand. I wonder if she is even going to take care of your cows now, because she's also indicated a ballot of opposition to Bill 42; I'm just curious where your relationship will be and whether your cows are going to be taken care of during this process.

With that, I know that this legislation is expected to be put through the process today and to be receiving third reading. I will allow members opposite to express their viewpoints, but it is important for me to express mine, that I am opposed to certain sections of the legislation. I believe that if this is to be a truly voluntary process, farmers will have the opportunity to make that truly voluntary process at the kitchen table.

In closing, I hope the minister will refer this to the committee of the whole House and make that amendment that allows the farmers to make that choice at their kitchen table, so that we can develop and put in place policies that will provide for farmers to have farm-gate pricing versus legislation called stable funding.

The Acting Speaker: Are there members who wish to comment or have a question?

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I just wanted to add a couple of points. During the debate, my colleague of course spoke out against it.

I've spoken to a lot of people in my part of rural Ontario. I spoke to them at, for example, the Markham-Stouffville Fair just last weekend. I spoke to them at the plowing match; in fact, one of our pages, Eric Ferguson, who is from my riding, has participated in the plowing matches. It's important that we take a look at rural Ontario. It's important that we have something to allow these farm organizations to promote important elements of farming and make sure that those messages get down here to Queen's Park; that they can actually lobby effectively.

The member said we don't speak often enough and don't let our constituents know. Well, I wrote articles in the newspaper about it to encourage people to respond to me, and I didn't get a lot of negative response.

I think it's important that we do support farmers, and this bill is going to support agriculture as a whole, so I don't agree with my colleague, but I appreciate his point of view just the same.

The Acting Speaker: Are there any other members for questions and/or comments? Seeing none, the member for Chatham-Kent has two minutes to respond.

Mr Hope: One thing about this place is that we do have a democratic right. We have the right to express our viewpoints, and I compliment my colleague for expressing his. With the limited time, I'll sit down and allow the opportunity for the Liberals to hear the preamble that will go on over there; also the Conservatives.

The Acting Speaker: Are there any other members who wish to participate in the debate?

Mr Eddy: I appreciate the opportunity to speak very briefly on the bill. I will be voting in favour of the bill. Of course we do have some concerns about agriculture in general and indeed parts of the bill; however, we are in favour. I know we all agree in this House about the importance of the agricultural industry in Ontario, the second most important industry in terms of the value of production, jobs, purchasing power and many of the other things that have been said. It's important that the agricultural industry be fostered and supported, and I'm very much in favour of that.

It's our hope that following the passage of this bill the government will not download programs and costs to the farm organizations and to farmers. That's a real fear out there and I think is indeed the cause of some people being opposed to the bill.

It's also our hope that the government will not keep reducing OMAF's annual budget, because that is the life-blood of the agricultural industry. The budget has been reduced; I think last year for the first time in many years, if ever, it was reduced, and it has a very serious effect on the agricultural industry.

It is our sincere hope that the government will indeed continue to support and encourage agriculture research and development because of its tremendous importance to agriculture. Every year I have the opportunity to read new crop recommendations and read with great interest the new varieties that have been developed, in grains primarily, to increase production and withstand adverse weather conditions and diseases. That is so important, and the development and production of alternative crops is also essential in Ontario. We have a tremendous variety of crops at the present time, but alternative crops are essential, especially in view of the agricultural decline somewhat of the tobacco-growing industry.

I would certainly urge the government to ensure the continuation of the family farm. I know conditions have changed, that the world has changed, but the family farm is still the backbone of rural and small-town Ontario. The presence of OMAF programs and development of new ones are so important. I assure you that actions such as this are cost-effective to the rural economy, cost-effective for this province, for rural municipalities and rural organizations.

Those points, I hope, will be taken to heart and supported by the Minister of Agriculture and Food and OMAF. I also think there has to be a review following the operation of the provisions of the bill in a few years.

I support and have supported OMAF for a great many years, although I'm not a full-time farmer and haven't been for many, many years. But I do own, operate and reside on one and I keep in touch with my neighbours and I know the importance of their feelings. I hope they would support farm organizations, because we cannot stress too much the importance of a strong voice for agriculture. It reminds me of the strong municipal voice we now have, when the Rural Ontario Municipal Association and the Association of Counties and Regions of Ontario were almost forced through the ministry grant system to amalgamate into one voice, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. I think municipalities have benefited the ministry and the province and I would hope the same could happen with agriculture, with a strong agricultural voice made up of general farm organizations.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments?

Mr Arnott: I'm pleased to have about two minutes to respond. I had hoped to be able to speak at length on this bill; unfortunately, because of time limitations I won't be able to, but I want to congratulate the member for Brant-Haldimand on his fine speech this afternoon.

1740

I intend to support this bill. During the 1990 election, this question was posed to me: Did I support the concept of stable funding in principle? I said that I did.

Over the course of the last three years, we've seen the stable funding issue giving the government fits from time to time. The minister, I'm sure, would admit that. But we now see a bill that I think all of us agree is probably not absolute perfection but is something that most of us can live with. I want to congratulate the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario for their input on this.

I know that in the riding of Wellington specifically, the Wellington County Federation of Agriculture does an outstanding job, much of it on a volunteer basis. I want to especially mention George Strachan, who is the OFA director for Wellington, who is outstanding in terms of his advice to me. He's been very helpful over the last three years.

During the course of this debate, we had many questions posed to us as members of the Legislature: Did we support it? Did we have concerns about it? I said at that time, a year ago I suppose, that whatever alternative approaches for stable funding are considered, it is essential that the membership fee be reasonable and affordable, that the organizations be accountable to their membership and that information be available to the members explaining exactly how the money generated through their fees is being spent.

I believe very strongly that those qualifications have to be maintained over the next three years or we're going to be in a situation perhaps where the minister will review the whole program. I think it's important those qualifications be, at all times, at the forefront and we keep those in our minds.

I indicate to you that I do intend to support this bill today, and thank you very much.

The Acting Speaker: Are there any other members who wish to participate in questions and/or comments? Seeing none, the member for Brant-Haldimand has two minutes to respond, if he wishes.

Mr Eddy: Thank you for the opportunity to respond. The importance of agriculture cannot be overstressed, and along with the importance of agriculture, the importance of farmers and the feeling that they're part of a whole agricultural organization movement to meet with government. Government is much more complex. It's much larger these days, as we know, and in order for any segment of the province to have a voice, it needs to be organized. I'm sure of that.

I would comment as well on the need for a review of the bill, or also the matter of the need for a type of appeal to the tribunal, because as we know in most other situations where there is a decision-making body, there is an appeal mechanism of some kind. I want to stress the importance of that.

The Acting Speaker: Are there any other speakers who wish to participate in the debate?

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I'm pleased to rise for a very few short minutes to comment on Bill 42, An Act to provide for Farm Registration and Funding for Farm Organizations that provide Education and Analysis of Farming Issues on behalf of Farmers.

I want to indicate from the beginning that I support this legislation in principle. Yes, it's been rather contentious and widely debated legislation. In my area of the province, Simcoe county, there have been a number of concerns expressed to me over the past several months with respect to the contents of this legislation. I tell you that my support is not wholehearted and that I share some of those reservations that I've heard expressed by farmers in Simcoe county.

But I want to make it very clear for the record, as I've made it clear to my constituents in many speeches across the county in the past few months, that I too share the belief, along with many members of this Legislature, that we must have strong general farm organizations in the province of Ontario.

I'm Health critic for the Ontario PC Party and I spend a great deal of time dealing with lobby groups and interest groups. I can tell you that the way politics have gone in this province in the last decade, it's the squeaky wheel that gets the grease here at Queen's Park and we have to have a strong voice for rural Ontario.

I'm tired, as the member for Simcoe West, of having people come up on weekends from the city and dictate to us how we should live our lives in rural Ontario. In fact, I've often said in this House that it seems to me we have people who visit our area on weekends and they want those of us in rural Ontario to live in what I call a perpetual Kodak moment. They don't necessarily want us to farm if there are any odours or pollution that they say are created in that process. They don't necessarily like the noise. They don't want us to develop.

They don't seem to understand that farm incomes are extremely low and declining over the years. Indeed, support by the government to farmers has declined significantly under the NDP government. They like to come up and stare at us on weekends, but they don't want us to do anything to develop the land. We can't do anything to earn a decent living.

We see that with the Sewell commission running around the province. We see that with a lot of the planning and official plan amendments and official plan processes that are now going on throughout Simcoe county, particularly in New Tecumseth, the southwest portion of Simcoe county that I represent. We see the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food not being the ministry going to bat for farmers. In fact, in my area, we call it the Ontario Ministry of Aggravation and Frustration. It traditionally was the ministry of the government that was there to go to bat for farmers at the cabinet table. I've not seen much of that demonstrated with this government.

However, I do not want to be totally negative. I want to commend the government for having come around to some degree with respect to Bill 42 as compared to the previous Bill 105. I give the credit to our critic, Mr Villeneuve, from eastern Ontario. He worked very hard.

My preference would have been, in a perfect world and a perfect Legislature, to continue a voluntary contribution on behalf of farmers to general farm organizations, but my overriding principle and belief is that we do need a strong voice for rural Ontario. My experience over many years as a political assistant and three years in this Legislature is that the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, and in particular in my local area the Simcoe County Federation of Agriculture, do an excellent job in representing farmers. I think they need the financial support of farmers to ensure they're able to continue to join the massive lineup of lobby groups that we see here at Queen's Park.

I have a couple of concerns. One is with respect to the refundable nature of the fee that will be paid to general farm organizations. I note on page 14 of the minister's remarks this afternoon that he says: "Some farmers fear that the refundable nature of the fees may be arbitrarily revoked by the minister and that they'll wind up paying regardless of how they feel. Let me assure you that this kind of change could only happen under a legislative amendment which would have to be approved by a majority of MPPs."

That speaks to the question of trust. They hold the majority. If the minister really wanted to assure this House that the refundable nature of this legislation would be untouched during its three years before it's up for review, then he would have been more clear in his remarks. We don't have a great deal of trust in the NDP government throughout the province. That's played into this issue. We've heard that expressed by farmers. We've heard it expressed by the member for Simcoe East who talked about the hidden agenda.

I'll tell you that as Health critic I went through this last year, along with other colleagues on this side of the House, when the government moved to unionize the Ontario Medical Association. I find to this day, in travelling to doctors' offices and meeting with physicians, a lot of them don't know they've been unionized.

With respect to a particular section in this act, section 3 says, "The minister may use the information received from farming business registration forms to develop agricultural policies and programs for the ministry, to develop and implement methods of distributing information about the policies and programs, to develop mailing lists and for the prescribed purposes."

I simply want to say in the remaining moment that the government better not use these lists to unionize farmers. If you do that, we will be back at this legislation, we will be back in this Legislature and we will put pressure on the government. I'll tell you, there's a lot left up to the regulations, but there's nothing in the way the bill is written to assure me that there isn't a hidden agenda and to assure me that these lists will be kept confidential and not put in the hands of union organizers. Lists are essential to union organization, and I say to the minister that the regulations better ensure that these lists are confidential and that they are used for the purposes contained in this legislation as has been briefed to members of this Legislature.

Again, I am pleased to support the legislation in principle. I have many other concerns with it. The reality is that the government is going to pass Bill 42 -- to ensure that it's fair to the farmers of this province. I do agree above all that rural Ontario must be represented in a very strong way here at Queen's Park and I believe the general farm organizations will continue to do that.

1750

The Acting Speaker: Now we have time for questions and/or comments.

Mr Klopp: I too leave my comments very close and short tonight, because the main thing is that we're going to pass stable funding. I've been around this for 10 years; I've been around it for a long time. If anybody thinks it's going to be undemocratic, they've never been to a farm meeting in their life.

This thing is mandatorily refundable. This thing has been studied. I appreciate all parties' comments and I certainly hope they do it tonight. This thing is about a vehicle allowing farmers to get involved. I hope that people get involved. I think of the county federation of agriculture in my county when we did have the levy. That was thought of some 55 years ago. Unfortunately, we let it fade away. This is a new vehicle for the new time.

I think of the farmers who have given their undying support at 2 o'clock in the morning to help fellow colleagues and their neighbours. That's what this bill is about, that they get a bit of their gas paid and whatever for.

I think of three people who come to my mind -- and many farmers can think of three in their own minds -- who were living proof of this and wanted stable funding. I think of Andy Durand, Bill Mann and a fellow I got to meet in my life, Joe Murphy from eastern Ontario. Those people were living proof. They could have gone on their own, not worried about their fellow neighbours and said, "I can do my own lobbying," but they said they wanted to be together. That's what this bill is about.

This is a vehicle. It will only be as good as the farmers who make it good, but I have great faith in the farm community, that it will make this vehicle work for the community. It's not just lobbying government; it's Union Gas or anybody who wants to go through your property. It's a chance for farmers to work with farmers, to have strength for the betterment of all the community. That's what this is all about.

I know that the big moments are when we go and lobby government on this or I get lobbied on that. It isn't a dirty word. This is going to be good for the farm community. Let's get it done tonight. It's been too long.

The Acting Speaker: Are there further members who wish to participate for questions and/or comments?

Mrs Sullivan: The member, in his remarks, spoke of the prospect or fear of the possibility of union organization through the New Democratic government, I suppose, using the list of members or registered farmers under the bill. That is not my concern, I must say. However, I am concerned that the regulations be circulated for comment and consideration by those who are affected by them and, furthermore, that those lists, the mailing lists, are not used by and are not sold by the government to those people who market products or equipment to the farmers. This is a targeted mailing list, you will understand, and of great value. We are seeing the information contained on drivers' licences being sold as a revenue-raising vehicle for the province. I would like to have an assurance from the minister that the information on these mailing lists will not be circulated to raise dollars for the provincial treasury.

The Acting Speaker: Any further members?

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): Again, I just want to take a few minutes to first of all congratulate the minister on his ability to regroup and bring this bill back in as Bill 42. I know that when Bill 105 was introduced to the Legislature I really believed at that time that the whole issue was lost and that it wouldn't be possible to come back again with another bill, because the people I had talked to were so disillusioned with what they saw at that time that they had a real concern.

I not only congratulate the Minister of Agriculture and Food for bringing this bill back as Bill 42, but I congratulate our colleague the member for S-D-G & East Grenville, who I know has worked very closely with the minister and has perhaps been as responsible in many ways for putting this legislation together in a manner that's acceptable to, hopefully, what will turn out to be the majority of the farm organizations.

I know that in my riding there's a definite division in how people accept that, but a lot of that is that they just do not want more regulation; they do not want more government. That is really what's bothering them. They're not really seeing the benefits of having the bill and having the organization, first of all getting registration and knowing who our farmers are and how many there are. Do we have 40,000 farmers or do we have 70,000 farmers? As a result of this registration, the Minister of Agriculture and Food will know that. He can devise programs and policies that hopefully will make agriculture more beneficial in my riding and across Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: We have the opportunity for one more question and/or comment.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): In the short time that we have, and I know we're hurried for time here, I want to congratulate the member for Simcoe West on what he said in the short time that he had to speak. He was right on with a lot of the things he mentioned to the government.

I too have supported this bill -- I supported it last time when I campaigned -- and I think most of the people in my riding support it. There are some in my riding who don't. I think a lot of it's been that they just don't understand the bill. We had trouble with the first bill that came in here. That made a lot of trouble, but I think that now it's been understood and I think that it'll be up to all the members here who support this bill to get out to the people to let them understand it.

I'd like to thank too the OFA and the Christian Farmers for coming here today. I have many of them in my riding, and I know the OFA in my riding has supported this bill all along.

One of the things I am concerned about and I've talked to the minister about is the registration form they'll have to sign. I've been shown a draft of it. If it's like that, there'll be no problem. But I must caution the minister, if there is a problem with this, I'll be one of the first to stand up here and say so. I think he knows that. We don't want a long, drawn-out application form for farmers to have to fill out. If it's no worse than the registration form we fill out now for our farm tax rebate, it won't be too bad. I understand where we need the government to have a handle on the registration of farmers.

People always talk too that you're forced into that. We're not forced into this. They can get their money back. I think they've come a long way with this bill. There were some concerns at first, but I think it shows that if the government does work with the opposition, we can get a bill that we can all support.

I think that's one of the major things that happened here this time. For over three years the government hasn't listened to this side; this time they have, and we've come up with something that we all can support. I think that's one of the major lessons.

The Acting Speaker: Now the member for Simcoe West may respond, if he wishes.

Mr Jim Wilson: Because of the time, I will not respond.

The Acting Speaker: Are there any other members who wish to participate in the debate? If not, the minister.

Hon Mr Buchanan: I want to thank very quickly all the members who have spoken and expressed their views. This is a very important day for agriculture. It's a celebration of agriculture, as far as I'm concerned. It's nice to have a day in this House when we talk about agriculture and rural issues, and I welcome all the comments that were made here today.

I also want to thank my parliamentary assistants, who have worked very hard on this bill as well, and the farm organizations that have worked with us. We started meeting on this issue, I think it was, in December 1990. We had monthly meetings with the farm organizations. We've talked about this, we've consulted, we've compromised, we've changed and we've adapted, and I think we have a bill that may not be perfect but that we can certainly live with. I look forward to its implementation.

I think that with that I will stop and thank everyone for their support in this bill.

The Acting Speaker: The Minister of Agriculture and Food has moved third reading of Bill 42, An Act to provide for Farm Registration and Funding for Farm Organizations that provide Education and Analysis of Farming Issues on behalf of Farmers. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed to the motion will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. I declare the motion carried.

Resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Interjection: Recorded vote.

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): Then 12 people stand.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: You had already declared the motion passed.

The Acting Speaker: The bill has now passed.

Being that it is six of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 1802.

October 6, 1993

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

NORTHERN LIBRARY SERVICES

ORILLIA JAZZ FESTIVAL

VIOLENCE IN BOSNIA-HERCEGOVINA

PARAMEDIC SERVICES

WCB PREMIUMS

JOBS ONTARIO CAPITAL

LEADER OF THE THIRD PARTY

EVA'S PLACE

NORA MCCULLOUGH

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

EARTHQUAKE IN INDIA

ORAL QUESTIONS

CANCER TREATMENT

BLOOD PRODUCTS FACILITY

NEW WCB HEADQUARTERS

LEADER OF THE THIRD PARTY

WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY AGENCY

BLOOD PRODUCTS FACILITY

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

BENEFITS FOR OLDER WORKERS

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

PLANT CLOSURE

SOCIAL CONTRACT

PETITIONS

CASINO GAMBLING

EXPENDITURE CONTROL

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

LONG-TERM CARE

ST GREGORY SEPARATE SCHOOL

GAMBLING

HOME CARE

CLOSURE OF LIQUOR STORE

VIOLENCE IN BOSNIA-HERCEGOVINA

HEALTH CARE

ONTARIO FILM REVIEW BOARD

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FARM REGISTRATION AND FARM ORGANIZATIONS FUNDING ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR L'INSCRIPTION DES ENTREPRISES AGRICOLES ET LE FINANCEMENT DES ORGANISMES AGRICOLES