L095b - Wed 26 Jun 1996 / Mer 26 Jun 1996
Report continued from volume A.
1625
ORDERS OF THE DAY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LE MINISTÈRE DES RICHESSES NATURELLES
Mr Klees, on behalf of Mr Hodgson, moved third reading of the following bill:
Bill 36, An Act to amend certain acts administered by the Ministry of Natural Resources / Projet de loi 36, Loi modifiant certaines lois appliquées par le ministère des Richesses naturelles.
Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I am pleased to be able to rise on the third reading of this bill, because I attempted to speak twice on the second reading of this bill and the very diligent table officers shut me down very quickly. I am sure the folks back home are very anxious to hear again what I had to say in the second reading debate. They probably didn't know why all of a sudden I just sat in my chair, but I was told to sit down; that was about six weeks apart, I believe. I am glad to have this opportunity to speak on this bill on behalf of my party.
As I hope most of us in this House realize, and the people watching, this is basically a mini-omnibus bill brought forward by the Minister of Natural Resources, Northern Development and Mines which is going to amend the Crown Forest Sustainability Act, the Game and Fish Act and the Provincial Parks Act. There are some very important matters here that actually are of very keen interest to the general public in regard to this bill -- it's not just housekeeping -- and there are some parts of this bill that I do support and other parts of it that I don't.
In fact, I believe it was an attempt by the government to diminish opposition to this bill by bringing it in in the form of an omnibus bill so that parts of the bill that I and my colleagues could support -- for instance, a restriction on the sale of bear parts throughout this province, something that we and I'm sure all members in the House support -- were mixed with the privatization of provincial parks and the hiking of provincial park fees. Unfortunately, it is all together in one lump, but these debates do afford an opportunity for members to get up and debate those issues that they do support and those that they don't and so the public can become clear as to what those issues are from our side of it.
The area of greatest concern that this act addresses and that, as I said before, I do support is the prohibition of the sale of illegal bear parts in Ontario. The legislation prohibits the sale of bears or bear parts, regardless of whether they have been killed in Ontario or not, and I think that's a very progressive change. This provision is designed to respond to a growing public campaign against the sale of these bear parts. We've all read in the newspapers about the incredible demand for parts such as gall bladders in different countries around the world. Ontario being the repository of a great part of North America's black bear population, this is where poachers come to harvest these bears illegally and then sell these parts in Ontario and around the world. It is a very lucrative business, and unfortunately where there's a buck to be made there are some people, as human nature unfortunately presents us, who take advantage of that opportunity.
I am very happy to see that the government is stepping in here in a very hard way to beef up its enforcement of the prohibition against the sale of bear parts in Ontario.
The argument that's made, of course, is that with this very lucrative market there is a great increase in illegal bear hunting. There are also many in the general public who have concerns about legal bear hunting in Ontario. As people may know, bear hunting is rather different from the regular sort of game hunting where you stalk the game through the bush and the forest. Bear hunting is on a different type of footing, where guides set baits both in spring and in the fall and basically the bear is baited to that baiting area.
Many in society don't like that type of hunting, and there is a great debate over whether we should be allowing spring hunting of bears at all. Even as a northerner, while bear hunting is a lucrative activity in my riding, I certainly have to question the open season on a mammal in the springtime when many of those female bears are in cub. That's something maybe we have to debate another time. But for now, what the government has put forward I certainly do support and I think it's proper to do so and we'll be looking forward to that greater enforcement.
1630
An area of concern I do have is what the government wants to do with its provincial parks. I personally and many of my northern colleagues have been affected by the closure of a lot of these parks, by the inability of the government to open some of these provincial parks and the attempt of the government to privatize some of the other parks that it feels are not economically sustainable.
I really have to question, as I did in my second reading debate about six weeks ago now, the whole notion that provincial parks should be considered profit centres. I don't think that was the original idea of probably a Conservative government at the beginning of this century when we first established provincial parks. I believe it's the 100th anniversary of Algonquin park, so I guess it was before this century started, back in at least 1896, and maybe it was 1895, when the government of the day first established Algonquin park as the first provincial park in this province. So we've really got a proud tradition of 100-years-plus in this province of setting aside wild areas, wilderness areas, for the recreational use of the people of Ontario.
While there's lot of controversy about how much parkland we need and extending parks today, there's certainly no debate as to the function of parks, the principle of why we set aside land for the parks. It's conservation, it's preservation, but also it's for the enjoyment of the people of Ontario, and it also adds an economic boost as it is a major attraction for tourism all year round now in this province. For the Minister of Natural Resources at the very beginning of the park season, about a month before parks normally start to open, to announce that they would start to have some discussions with some local groups in the communities adjacent to some of these parks that they did not feel were viable to open any longer really didn't give the local community much of a chance to get together and organize a way to employ local people to open these parks. It's a great concern.
I give an example of the Marten River park in the south end of my riding, about 60 kilometres north of North Bay along the Highway 11 corridor. In the Marten River area there are just a few outfitters who live there, a few residents who run some of the restaurants, the gas station, the agency liquor store that service the tourism. There's really not a community there that is prepared or has the viability to run a provincial park on behalf of the province.
I really think the province should stay in the park business. I think it's important that the province have a presence in provincial parks, give a clear mandate to the people of Ontario that they do believe in provincial parks, that they should be operated by the province, that all of those parks should remain accessible to all the people of Ontario and others who come to our province. They should pay for that privilege, for sure, and we should try to run them on a sustainable basis, but to start to say that these are businesses and that we've got a business plan now for these parks and even parks themselves will be profit centres, I think is really stretching in this particular area what the role of government is.
I don't think we're going to be running hospitals as profit centres. We'd certainly like them to be more efficient, there's no doubt about it, but I don't think we consider hospitals or schools profit centres. Likewise, I don't think we should be considering our provincial parks profit centres.
So I would say in our third reading debate that the ministry should be reconsidering its parks policy. We've seen through the Ministry of Natural Resources a business plan that is trying to privatize the whole operation. Basically we're going to give the stewardship of our natural resources over to private industry that exploits those resources. I would want to make sure that if this is the way you want to go, we make sure that the enforcement is there from the ministry, its presence is still there so we make sure that our resources are handled in the most sustainable way we can and we know about in 1996. I think that's very, very important.
We've also seen the cutback of the fire bases across Ontario. We've seen the laying off of the MNR fire crews across Ontario, except of course that today we have more ground burned in Ontario in this fire season than we had for all of last year, and the ministry now is scrambling to recall some of those people whom they laid off; they're retraining some of those people they laid off; they're bringing in fire crews from other jurisdictions -- other provinces and states -- around the continent.
When I tried to make a call to my district manager of the Kirkland Lake district and the Swastika office today on another matter, I was told that that manager is up in Kenora managing some of the fires because of the shortage of staff the ministry now has. So I cannot conduct business with the district manager of the Kirkland Lake district, which sits just a few miles off the Quebec border, because he right now is out in Kenora, by the Manitoba border, trying to help manage the fire situation, because I would take it that some of the regular fire managers there are probably out on the line or out training some of these people whom we now need to have retrained.
I would ask in this case the parliamentary assistant, through him to the minister and to the government as a whole, to really start to reconsider some of these business plans that you're putting forward. I think the firefighting situation for northern Ontario forests is a very good example of where sometimes you move with too great haste and you can make a mistake. I think it's a good time, especially when it's such a grave mistake as this -- we're losing more forests this year than we had in total last year -- that we admit the mistake. I'm not going to call you on it; just admit the mistake and I'll applaud you if you bring back the adequate crews that are necessary. I'll applaud your saying that you made a mistake. I won't jeer at you, because I want to see the situation corrected. Before scoring political points, what I'm here for is to make sure that northern resources are taken care of. So I say to the government: Restore those fire crews to northern Ontario; make sure we have adequate coverage.
I know the minister has said, "We don't like paying people on standby." It's the same thing with the winter road maintenance that the Minister of Transportation has stated. But isn't that what our fire department is all about? It's the nature of the business: You just never know when a fire is going to break out. In the circumstance of forest fires, though, we actually have a pretty good indication of when forest fires happen. There is a fire season. It happens from about May to October of each year, but really the worst of those fires happen in June, July and August. So we have a scoped-down time frame over the calendar year of when we know there is the greatest need to have those fire crews.
The history of this of course has been that in the old days when logging depended upon the transportation of the river routes, it was a winter operation. The lumberjacks of those days worked in the winter. They hauled out the trees via horse, they put them on the rivers, and when the rivers melted, the logs were driven down by the rivers to the mills at the end of the river or on the lakes where those rivers ran. Those people worked seasonally, but they also had a summer job and that was to protect those forests through the fire bases, through employment through the MNR. So they worked with the private forest companies in the winter season, and then after breakup, they worked for the government fighting fires, protecting that very resource that their livelihood depended upon. That's the seasonal nature of that type of work.
It's very, very important still to have fire crews in adequate numbers to protect our forests in northern Ontario. I ask the parliamentary assistant that he pass that along to the minister, that it's my concern and it's my other northern colleagues' concern in the Liberal caucus, and I'm sure all northern colleagues in this House, that we have adequate protection.
In wrapping up, I would say that I'm disappointed that the ministry brought in an omnibus bill that in the end, because of its nature, I'm not going to be able to support, though I do support one aspect of it, and that is strengthening the Game and Fish Act so that the prohibition of the sale of bear parts is tightened up in the province of Ontario. That's a good thing to do, and I applaud the minister for doing that.
1640
The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Questions or comments? Further debate?
Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I spoke extensively to the bill on second reading, but there are some points I want to reiterate and reinforce on third reading this afternoon. What does the bill do? There are two things I want to focus on.
First of all, the bill introduces new user fees for independent loggers in this province, something the minister, when he was on this side in the opposition benches, promised that his government, when elected, would never do. The fact of the matter is that the government is now going to charge those independent loggers, who already operate on the edge in this province in terms of making a living, new user fees, fees for services that they previously received from Ministry of Natural Resources staff in this province. That runs completely contrary to promises the now Premier made both in the Common Sense Revolution and in the wrapup before and during the election campaign and runs directly contrary to promises the minister made when he sat on this side of the House.
I think it's shameful that nowhere in the bill does the minister have the decency at least to point out that what the bill does in its amendments to the Crown Forest Sustainability Act is to slap on new user fees to people who are trying to make a living working in the bush in this province, people whom he used to defend, people he used to say were already living on the edge, people who now are going to get a new user fee, courtesy of the Conservative government of Ontario. I'm sure they thank you for that new user fee.
Secondly, the bill puts in place the framework for the privatization of provincial parks in this province. Once upon a time former Tory governments would have considered provincial parks as a resource that we should protect for the benefit of all people in the province. Now we see this Conservative government moving to a framework wherein the only focus, the only driving force behind the maintenance of provincial parks will be to maximize as much as possible profits from those parks, will be to ensure that those parks at all cost make a profit.
There are some parks in this province that will never make a profit, that will never break even, but because of their ecological value, because of the value that tourists worldwide look for and come to Ontario for when they come to parks like Quetico, those parks should continue to be sustained by the province of Ontario. The underlying principle in their maintenance and protection should not be to ensure that they make money or make a profit.
We have a government that is not concerned about protecting natural resources in this province, that is not concerned about ensuring that folks in Ontario will continue to have access to provincial parks, but is only concerned about turning over the operation of those parks to the benefit of their friends, to make some money, instead of trying to ensure that everyone will always continue to benefit from those parks.
Lots of folks in this province can't afford a cottage on our lakes. The only access they have is to go through the provincial park system. When you put in place a fee system for some of these parks to make money, you effectively guarantee that most people won't be able to afford to use the parks, especially those on fixed incomes, especially the disabled. It's a shame that, in terms of trying to make money, we would look at a resource that should be protected for all the people of the province and figure out how, instead of making sure people can continue to have access, we can milk them for all they're worth. I don't think that's what former Tory governments had in mind when they set up the provincial parks system in the first place.
The minister, throughout his remarks on second reading, tried to tell this House that despite all the cuts, his ministry was somehow going to be able to continue to protect the natural resources in this province, resources like fish and wildlife and timber and provincial parks and aggregates, resources that belong to everyone. His comments are just rhetoric. The fact of the matter is that he is overseeing the gutting of the Ministry of Natural Resources in 1996-97. This minister will lose over 2,100 full-time-equivalent positions from his ministry; he is losing 20% of all cuts across all the ministries from his own. That ministry and those staff who remain, despite all their best efforts, will be completely incapable of protecting and maintaining the natural resources of this province.
If you look at where the cuts are occurring, you can certainly see the discrimination by this minister against northern Ontario. The fact is, 45% of the cuts of those 2,100 positions occur in small communities right across northern Ontario, in places like Temagami, Cochrane, Elk Lake, in a whole host of communities that look to this ministry to have some viable economy in their communities.
What the minister is doing in many northern communities is ensuring that they will not have an economic future, because they won't have those public service jobs any more to maintain those communities. Sooner or later the school, the gas station and the grocery store in that community are going to close because those staff will have to go somewhere else to find employment, and with the number of people who are going to be left, there will not be enough people to sustain those communities.
That's what is happening. It's blatant, it's obvious and it's utter discrimination against a whole number of small towns in the special part of the province that this minister is supposed to represent as Minister of Northern Development and Mines.
The changes in this bill come against a backdrop that has to be repeated. That backdrop is that with the magnitude of the cuts, any positive changes that might occur in the bill will not be able to go into effect because there won't be the staff to make them go into effect.
It's well and good for the government to say that they are going to prohibit the sale of bear parts in the province, but if you don't have the conservation officers in the province of Ontario to enforce it, that's just rhetoric again.
It's well and good for the minister to say that they're going to protect the timber resources in the province of Ontario, but if you don't have staff on the ground to ensure that regeneration is occurring, to ensure that reforestation is occurring, to ensure that companies are undertaking sound, environmental cutting practices, that's just more rhetoric.
What happens is that you put all the communities that depend on those resources and all the workers who depend on the sale of those resources at risk. That's what the government is doing at this point in time in Ontario.
It's very clear, and I raised it during the debate, that the government will also be unable to meet any terms and conditions that they are obligated to under the timber Environmental Assessment Act. This government has an obligation under the force of law to ensure that the terms and conditions that were set out under the EA act are met, and yet, because of the massive downsizing, because of the massive layoffs that will occur at this ministry, they will not be able to meet any terms and conditions that have been set out and that do have the force of law in this province.
I want to give the parliamentary assistant just one example of one of the terms and conditions that has already been breached by this government. Condition 77 says very clearly that the ministry has to work with first nations in this province "to ensure that first nations reap some benefit from the allocation and the utilization of timber resources in this province."
That condition makes it very clear that the ministry has to work in partnership with first nations to ensure first nations people have training opportunities, have job opportunities, reap some economic benefit from the sale of wood products in the province. And it says very clearly that the ministry has to work to ensure that first nations are allocated timber resources and do benefit.
What has happened? Let me give you one example. Whitefish Lake First Nation had a meeting early in February with Mr Paul Wyatt, district manager in Sudbury, and a number of other MNR staff. It was agreed that the ministry and the first nation would work together to set up a working group to establish a process for the first nation to gain access to crown land for timber harvest in the next number of years and to allow them to have a better process to involve the first nation in the timber planning process.
1650
At that same meeting, after the ministry had made a number of commitments about working together, the first nation discovered that the timber they were talking about, the timber they wanted to get access to, was the same timber that this minister is giving away to the big pulp and paper companies and the big forestry companies as part and parcel of his secret negotiations to do away with all of the crown management units and give them over to the big pulp and paper companies and the forestry companies. The very timber which this first nation wants to have access to, and should have access to as part of condition 77, is the same timber that the ministry is now negotiating to give away, in this case, to E.B. Eddy out of Nairn Centre.
The chief of the first nation made it very clear in a letter he wrote at the end of April this year. I want to quote from it in the House today:
"However, at the April 26, 1996, meeting between your staff and mine, it became clear the ministry has no intentions of complying with the decision of the Environmental Assessment Board in respect to condition 77. My staff were informed that the ministry has been negotiating behind closed doors with the local licensees and with E.B. Eddy on a sustainable forestry licence (SFL). Once these SFLs are signed, it removes the ministry's responsibilities for the resources to the hands of the SFL holders. This is a direct defiance of the Environmental Assessment Board decision, which you have a legal responsibility to adhere to."
I suspect this same situation is repeating itself, not only near Nairn Centre but with a whole bunch of other first nations, who, under the terms and conditions of the EA order, thought they were going to have some access to some timber in this province and to benefit like other non-native communities do. The fact of the matter is, because of the secret negotiations that this minister continues to be involved in and because it is his preference to give away 8.2 million hectares of timber on crown management units to his friends in the pulp and paper industry, first nations like the Whitefish Lake First Nation, other non-native communities and other independent loggers will not get access to the timber that they have some entitlement to get. That is what I find so abhorrent about what's going on right now against the introduction of this bill.
We have a minister who comes and stands in his place in this House and with great pride presents this bill, and at the same time right across this province we have people who should get access to timber that belongs to all of us but who will not, because that timber is going to be transferred directly to the hands of people and organizations that already hold and have access to the majority of timber in this province.
The government had better step back and think again about what it's doing, because it does not create any new jobs for us to continue in this process, it does not create any sense of justice to continue with this process and it certainly doesn't help the ministry live up to its obligations under law to comply with the order that was set out.
Finally, I want to talk about firefighting. In the same context as I have raised concerns about the protection of fish and wildlife and timber resources, I have to raise the issue of fire protection. Again, what we see as a backdrop to the introduction of this bill is that with the cuts being made to this ministry, this minister will be completely incapable of protecting natural resources for the benefit of all.
We already know that as it stands at this moment we have lost a whole year's worth of timber because of the fire situation in northern Ontario. In direct contrast to that, we have a minister who in his attempt to save some $4 million from the fire budget in his ministry did two things: closed 17 of 19 fire attack bases in this province, 11 of them in northern Ontario, and did not recall some 20 firefighting crews, about 60 people, in this province who last year did work on protecting resources and people during the terrible fire season that we had in Ontario.
We have the government trying to save $4 million, and now we are faced with probably the worst fire season we have seen in a number of years and we're only at the beginning of it. The reality is, we have over 200 forest fires burning in the province now. We have almost all of northern Ontario under a restricted fire zone. We have out-of-province firefighters coming in to fight fires in Ontario at the same time as this minister has not bothered to recall the same firefighters who used to work for him and for this province last year, the same people who have worked any number of years to protect property and people in this province when it comes to fighting fires.
I was told by MNR staff yesterday that some of the firefighters from the US who were fighting fires in Wawa were asked two days ago whether they would like to continue to fight fires in northern Ontario and were sent up to northwestern Ontario. Maybe the parliamentary assistant can explain to me why we will continue to have out-of-province firefighters travel around and fight fires in our province when we won't even hire back the same people who used to work for the ministry last year. Where's the fairness in that? How can the minister defend that kind of action? There's something really wrong about that kind of process.
We also know that a number of the fire centres that were closed as a cost-saving measure have now been reopened. Despite the minister's rhetoric last week that through improved communications etc we can close some of those bases and continue to fight fires effectively, we know that a number of the centres have now been reopened, and I ask at what cost. The base in Ignace, for example, was completely shut down. The equipment was moved out. The telephones, the furniture, the staff were all moved. Last week, a controller from Sudbury ended up back in Ignace, reordering furniture, computer equipment, phones and faxes and getting all the firefighting equipment back to Ignace to help the ministry deal with the terrible fire situation around that community.
Someone's got to tell me how that makes any sense. Someone's got to tell me how that has saved this province any money. It was a stupid decision right from the start. We told the minister in this House that it was a dumb decision to try and play God and shut down fire centres and hope that you weren't going to have a bad fire season in northern Ontario. The minister, if he had any decency, would at least stand up in this House and admit that he made a dumb decision, that it was a stupid mistake and that when this fire season is over those bases are going to be kept open and those staff are going to be kept on, because I suspect at the end of the day we will have spent far more money fooling around closing down and reopening fire bases than the money we could have saved by keeping them open in the first place.
In conclusion, let me just say that we are voting against this piece of legislation not only because it establishes new user fees, which the government claimed it was against and would not introduce when it became the government, and not only because it establishes a framework for the privatization of the parks system in this province, which we are very much against because we believe that parks should be protected as a natural resource and should continue to be accessible to all Ontarians.
We are voting against this bill because we fundamentally believe that, despite all of his rhetoric, the Minister of Natural Resources will over the course of this mandate not be able to protect the natural resources of this province on behalf of the people of this province. Because of the magnitude of the cuts in staff, done purely to finance the big tax break, he and his staff will be incapable in community after community in this province of protecting fish, wildlife, timber, aggregates and provincial parks. They will not be capable of doing so, and the losers at the end of the day will not be the government, unfortunately, but will be all of the people of the province to whom all of these resources belong. That's the shame of it.
1700
The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments?
Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): I would like to take this opportunity to thank the member for Timiskaming as well as the member for Sudbury East for their contribution to this debate on Bill 36. I think it's very clear from the comments that have been made that we do all have the same objective, and that is, the sustainability of Ontario's natural resources, that we're all dedicated to and committed to ensuring that our natural resources are available to the people in this province for many years to come and that they're well managed. What we disagree with, obviously, is how to get there in some circumstances. We appreciate the comments that no doubt are well-meaning.
I won't go into details, but it is regrettable that over the course of debate, both on second reading and again today, on a number of occasions members opposite have in fact misrepresented certain facts and details -- to what end, I'm not sure. Perhaps you have some ideas as to why some of those facts would be misrepresented, but I think that as people across this province view the proceedings here, one thing that they will know is that the initiatives that are taken by this government are taken to ensure not only the present-day management of our natural resources but in fact the sustainability of our natural resources for future generations.
We believe that because we are applying some strategies that are fiscally responsible that will in fact enable us to do things together with the private sector -- and it's true that we look forward to working with the private sector not only in the forest industry but also in parks management -- that in the final analysis will be the best not only for the people of Ontario fiscally but also for the natural resources of this province.
Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I appreciate having the opportunity to make a quick comment on the remarks by the member for Sudbury East, someone who lives and works with people who make their living from the natural resources of this province, someone who represents constituents who are involved in resource-based industries, who represents constituents who are involved in tourism, who rely on the natural beauty and attributes of our natural resources, someone who has had responsibility in this portfolio area and, I might say to the parliamentary assistant, I think has a very strong grasp of the issues and the facts that are in dispute between the parties at this point in time.
I don't know how it is possible to comment on her speech with remarks like, "We're trying to do something in a fiscally responsible way," when she so clearly pointed out the ludicrousness, the inane policy of a government that would close fire stations, go through all of the costs of shutdown, of removal of equipment, of furniture, of communications, of supplies, and then turn around within such a short period of time and have to open it up all over again, have to reorder. I'd like to know where the original equipment went. Reorder probably new equipment in -- I've seen this happen in bureaucracies before -- move up all of the firefighting equipment again, re-bring the staff in, and to what cost? Not just fiscally, but to what cost in terms of quick response time in dealing with the fires in those communities, in those areas? What about the timber that we've lost? What's the cost of that this year?
Don't stand here in this House and tell us that you are going to handle the natural resources and preserve them for the public of Ontario but in a more fiscally responsible way, when you have laid off and handed pink slips to over 2,100 employees of that ministry. Over 20% of the cuts to the whole public service came out of the Ministry of Natural Resources, which means out of northern Ontario primarily. Over 40% of that ministry gone. Don't tell us you still have the resources to protect the natural resources of this province.
The Acting Speaker: Further questions or comments? Further debate? Seeing none, would the parliamentary assistant like to wrap up?
Mr Klees: I would just like to thank the members for their contribution to this debate, and we look forward to this bill being enacted to the benefit of the people of Ontario.
The Acting Speaker: Mr Klees has moved third reading of Bill 36. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?
All those in favour, please say "aye."
Those opposed, please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it. Call in the members.
Mr Ed Doyle (Wentworth East): Madam Speaker, it's my understanding that we have unanimous consent to delay the vote on this question until after question period tomorrow, Thursday, June 27.
The Acting Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.
House in committee of the whole.
MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LE MINISTÈRE DE L'AGRICULTURE, DE L'ALIMENTATION ET DES AFFAIRES RURALES
Consideration of Bill 46, An Act to amend or revoke various statutes administered by or affecting the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs and to enact other statutes administered by the Ministry / Projet de loi 46, Loi modifiant ou abrogeant diverses lois appliquées par le ministère de l'Agriculture, de l'Alimentation et des Affaires rurales, ou qui touchent ce ministère, et visant à édicter d'autres lois appliquées par le ministère.
The Second Deputy Chair (Ms Marilyn Churley): We'll just wait a few minutes so that staff can take their seats. Are there any amendments, and if so, to which sections?
Mr Harry Danford (Hastings-Peterborough): Yes, there are, Madam Speaker, and if you could just give me a second, I will find the right ones.
Sorry about that delay. I have four amendments; two relate to schedule A, one to schedule B and one to schedule D. They're all housekeeping amendments.
The Second Deputy Chair: Further amendments?
Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): I have an amendment to schedule A to the bill, clause 3(2)(a); also to schedule A to the bill, section 3; schedule A to the bill, section 5; schedule A to the bill, section 14; schedule A to the bill, section 15; schedule B to the bill, subsection 4(2).
The Second Deputy Chair: Any further amendments?
Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I also have an amendment to schedule H of the bill, section 4, to do with subsection 29(2) of the Milk Act.
1710
The Second Deputy Chair: There being no amendments to sections 1 through 3, are there any questions or comments on sections 1 through 3? Seeing none, shall sections 1 through 3 carry? Carried.
We move now to schedule A, sections 1 and 2. Are there any questions or comments? Shall sections 1 and 2 of schedule A carry? Carried.
We move now to schedule A, section 3.
Mr Hoy: I move that section 3 of schedule A to the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Limit on fees:
"(2.1) AgriCorp shall not charge a person fees or service charges related to the administrative costs of the corporation, including salaries and wage costs, employee benefit costs, transportation and communication costs, supplies and equipment costs, capital costs, and rental costs."
We believe this should be incorporated into the bill to protect the farmers of Ontario against a wide range of administrative user fees and service charges. This is not specifically spelled out in the bill, and I know the farm community and our party fear that the government will try to recoup, as the minister has said that he would like crop insurance to be self-reliant. So we have introduced this amendment to the bill and feel that it will add to the bill under schedule A.
Mr Danford: I would just like to make a couple of comments. I think at the outset we have dealt with all the issues in this bill. They've been dealt with through consultation and we've fashioned it in that order.
The commission is made up of members of their own industry. They will be directing their own industries, and to suggest that those members cannot make the best decisions on behalf of their own industry, I would have a real concern with. That's how it has been fashioned, and I would bring that point to this House. Surely the member across the way would not have concerns that the industry themselves could not look after those decisions and make them in the best interests of their own commodities.
Mr Hoy: Incorporated into the act also is that the minister may give directive to AgriCorp and perhaps, as I mentioned in my debate here on the second reading, the minister could direct AgriCorp to institute these on a wide range of issues such as salaries, wages and employee cost benefits. We think this protects the farmers of Ontario explicitly by putting it in the bill that this would not occur under an AgriCorp board of directors, either now or in the future, either now or with future ministers. So we've explicitly put it into the bill that this would not be allowed either today or some time into the future.
Mr Danford: The way this corporation is fashioned is that it allows the flexibility for the direction of AgriCorp to be dealt with by the members. The members represent the industry, and they can bring those concerns to the minister for consideration. But it comes in that direction and it is totally flexible. This government certainly has faith in those people who are involved with those decisions that they will reflect the true feeling and the needs and concerns of the industry, and we rest with that.
The Acting Chair (Mr Ted Chudleigh): Seeing no further questions or comments, Mr Hoy has moved an amendment to schedule A, section 3 of the bill. Is it the pleasure of the committee that this amendment carry?
Mr Danford: Mr Chair, could I move that all the votes be deferred until we've debated the whole bill. I believe there's unanimous consent.
The Acting Chair: If there are recorded votes requested, they can be deferred. Is there consent?
Mr Danford: Yes, we feel there is.
The Acting Chair: We still have to put the question on the amendment, however. Is it the pleasure of the House that this amendment carry?
All those in favour, please signify by saying "aye."
Those opposed signify by saying "nay."
Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): Mr Chair, could you clarify for us, please, what the amendment is that we're voting on here?
The Acting Chair: Section A, as moved by Mr Hoy.
Mr Danford: I think we need to clarify for all the members of the House, are we voting on the amendment as proposed or are we voting on the request that it be deferred till the end by unanimous consent?
The Acting Chair: We're voting on the amendment. If it is a recorded vote, it can be deferred, but the amendment must be voted in front of the House.
All those in favour of this amendment, please say "aye."
All those opposed, signify by saying "nay."
In my opinion, the nays have it.
I declare the amendment lost.
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): On a point of order, Chair, and you can help me on this: I thought the vote was taken and declared. Then somebody stands up and says, "Oh, wait a minute, I'm not so sure I want to vote on that," so you revote?
The Acting Chair: The vote was not declared. I heard one nay.
Mr Crozier: Thank you. You've clarified it for me.
Mr Hoy: I did have an amendment that went along with the one that was just defeated.
I move that clause 3(2)(a) of schedule A to the bill be amended by adding at the beginning "Subject to subsection 2.1," which was just defeated.
The Acting Chair: That amendment is now out of order because of the defeat of the last motion.
Shall sections 3 and 4 carry?
All those in favour, signify by saying "aye."
Those opposed say "nay."
I declare those sections carried.
There's an amendment to schedule A, section 5.
1720
Mr Hoy: I move that section 5 of schedule A to the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Tabling
"(1.1) Within 90 days of issuing directives under subsection (1), the minister shall lay a written copy of them before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next session."
We've entered this into the bill because we believe the farmers of Ontario will want to see what those directives are that the minister will be giving to AgriCorp. Could there be a directive to increase user fees in certain areas? Could there be other measures in business plans that the minister is directing AgriCorp to do? Notwithstanding that the membership, we are told, will be farmers, the minister still has involvement in the business of AgriCorp and we think it would be prudent to have these directives made public within 90 days.
The Chair (Mr Bert Johnson): Are there questions or comments on Mr Hoy's amendment?
Mr Danford: Very briefly, this government operates in an open fashion. The freedom of information act allows for adequate disclosure. To install this portion would create unnecessary red tape, we feel. This government is trying to move ahead in consultation with the people involved with this industry to put forth a more efficient way of providing services to that industry. That's part of our business plan and this has been readily agreed to by those people involved in coming forth with this bill, so I would oppose that.
Mr Hoy: The member opposite says they want to cut red tape and so on, but if indeed the minister has sent a directive, all one needs to do is show that directive to the farm community and the public after 90 days. I don't see it to be an onerous or time-consuming request. However, a freedom of information request can be time-consuming and costly for the public. I think to draw conclusions that this could be done under freedom of information is really quite a leap.
The other thing too would be that if the minister is acting in full regard for and upfront with AgriCorp and the farmers of Ontario, I see no reason why he wouldn't want to have his directives made public within a 90-day period. I would then assume, if the government is not in favour of this, that perhaps they're worried that their minister is going to give directives that the public simply should not see. I think for the protection of the minister, for the protection of AgriCorp and the farmers who deal with AgriCorp, this amendment should definitely pass.
Mr Danford: I certainly agree with the member that there has to be confidentiality and everything built into this process, but there also has to be flexibility to allow this corporation to work. With the fact that it is composed of people within their own industry advising what will happen and even fashioning the future for this industry, we feel we've allowed that flexibility to be part of this the way it's proposed. Basically, we stand on those grounds. That has been put together in cooperation with and with direction from those people involved through the industry, and we're opposed to it.
Mr Hoy: From your answer, and I'm trying to read what you're going to do when you vote here, it seems to me that you do not want the minister to issue his directives in a public way 90 days after he has asked AgriCorp to do a certain deed. I think it speaks poorly of your attitude towards directives to AgriCorp.
I've no question about farmers being at AgriCorp and doing their best to operate it, doing their best to provide for farmers in Ontario. The issue is not the board; the issue is the directives given by the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs now and in the future. We know that the minister some day, some time is going to be forced to talk to his directors and tell them perhaps that what you're doing is not in the same regard as what I would do.
It would be interesting for people who see their farmer representatives taking an action and they say, "Well, we did this because we got a directive from the minister, but we cannot discuss that because the minister will not give it in a public way."
I think you should have second thoughts about this, and it may not be the minister of the current day. We're looking at ministers down the road. We're looking at boards of AgriCorp down the road as well. I think public disclosure, if this is the great consulting government, would fit in well with your thoughts.
Mr Danford: As I said earlier, and I'd just like to reinforce that, this government operates in an open fashion. This government certainly intends to continue to do that, and whatever party, and whatever minister is representing whatever party, I am sure would do the same. We think we've allowed for this to be dealt with in a fair and equitable manner and we feel it's been adequately addressed.
Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I can't help but get into the discussion here. It seems to me that if the government wants to deal with matters and open way, this would be a natural amendment that it would want to adopt. What, after all, does it have to hide? What would the objection be? I can't understand why there would be some uncertainty or some opposition to this kind of amendment which simply ensures that things are done in an open manner.
The Chair: Mr Hoy has moved an amendment to schedule A, section 5. Is it the wish of the House that this amendment carry?
All those in favour, say "aye."
All those opposed, say "nay."
In my opinion, the nays have it.
I declare the amendment lost.
Shall section 5 carry? Carried.
Mr Danford: I move that section 12 of schedule A to the bill be amended by adding at the beginning "Subject to subsection 3(4)."
This amendment clarifies the fact that AgriCorp has the ability to invest funds, if you go back and refer to the other section, that will both generate revenues and serve to reduce the cost of programs to clients. That's the purpose of the amendment.
The Chair: Is it the wish of the House that this amendment carry? Carried.
Shall section 12 carry? Carried.
Shall section 13 carry? Carried.
Section 14.
1730
Mr Hoy: I move that section 14 of schedule A to the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Tabling
"(4) Within 90 days of submitting a business plan or a report to the minister under subsection (3), the minister shall lay a written copy of the business plan or the report, as the case may be, before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next session."
Mr Danford: This amendment is the very same as the one we just went through, and we're opposed to it. It adds unnecessary red tape and does not necessarily improve the situation.
Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I cannot understand the government's answer, "It adds red tape." It simply says that you table the business plan. If you're going to do the plan, table it and let the public see it. I can't understand the concept that it adds red tape. It is, "Bring one copy over here, put it there and let us read it." That's all. Surely someone who believes in openness, where a good amount of money is going to be spent, can't deny a reasonable amendment such as that.
Mr Hoy: The government has said on the previous motion, which was similar in nature, that they've done the consultative work and everything seems to be fine and in order and there would never be a day when we would need to question directives of any minister to a crown corporation such as AgriCorp; particularly, said the government, in light of the fact that always those directors would be farmers.
This one is similar in nature, but the Ontario Corn Producers' Association wonders about submitting a detailed business plan and reports to the minister, also that they should be made public so that producers can ascertain the direction of AgriCorp's future endeavours and examine program expenditures and insurance funds and funding levels etc.
Even the farm organizations have said they would like to see the last amendment and this amendment, most specifically in writing, passed so that we can maintain the openness that the farm community obviously believes is required and maintain the openness that this government says they like to enjoy. I can't see why you voted the last motion down, but I would forgive you if you voted in favour of this one.
Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I find it passing strange that the member opposes tabling the business plan. I think one real issue here, that the government tells us all the time, is that they want these things to be more businesslike. Surely if they've gone through the process of building a business plan it would be to their benefit, and to the benefit of AgriCorp, to have that be a public document that people could look at and say: "Okay. Now I see the whole picture. I see how this is supposed to work."
I think it's really very difficult for the public to believe in these protestations about wanting openness in this process if this much-vaunted business plan is not going to be available to them to look at so that they know what's to be expected.
What is the use of a business plan if it's not there for the very people who use the service that's being discussed in that business plan? It doesn't make any sense to me and it seems to me that whatever the level of confidence of farmers in the province in this whole process, it will be undermined by not being able to read those business plans.
Mr Danford: Very briefly, this has certainly been discussed. As I said earlier in the presentation, the groups that are involved in this have been consulted. They have looked at it very thoroughly. They have accepted it and endorsed it the way it is, by far well beyond the majority of them. That's the reason why it's been constructed this way and presented this way.
Mr Hoy: I wonder if the ministry would supply me with the correspondence after June 7 with the Ontario Corn Producers' Association questioning this very clause and what correspondence you might have that says they've had a change of heart. It's not something I'm aware of. Notwithstanding their request, there may have been others who felt, as we do, that the openness between the minister and AgriCorp should be maintained and should be one that is open to all who question directives, business plans, and why those business plan copies cannot be given out.
This is something your government has initiated quite a bit lately. Everything you do is now called a business plan and people want to know what your plans will be, either from AgriCorp to the minister or his directives to AgriCorp, and what changes would take place.
Once the crown corporation is in place or this bill is passed, I have some fears that the farming public will have very little to say. As a matter of fact, it's been stated, "Why don't we pass the bill and we'll talk over the summer how we're going to implement it?" That is backwards. So I still stand that the minister and the business plan should have a free flow and be open to the public.
Mr Crozier: I have listened very carefully to the debate and I think some very good points have been made on this side that would make it even more evident, if this amendment were passed, that would help the government to be more open, but as you hear the debate go on, I think those who may be viewing it will see very clearly that the only reason this motion is not going to be supported is because it was brought forward by the opposition. I just want those who are interested in this debate, as I am, to see that the only real reason it won't be supported is because it's an opposition motion.
Mr Danford: I would just reinforce that it was mentioned about the business plan -- our business plan has already been presented. It's already been in front of the people and they fully understand it.
Mr Phillips: I appreciate that the member just said the AgriCorp business plan has been presented. I wonder if he might give us the highlights of the AgriCorp business plan, because I perhaps missed the tabling of the AgriCorp business plan that he refers to and it may be helpful to me to know the highlights of the AgriCorp business plan. Would he agree to give us the highlights of AgriCorp business plan that he just referred to, and to table the AgriCorp business plan with us?
Mr Danford: With respect, I think we're here to debate the motion. I don't think we're here to debate the AgriCorp plan. Is that the reason?
Mrs Boyd: You just said you had it.
Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): You said you had it.
Mr Phillips: Perhaps Hansard could be helpful for us. I think the member earlier said that he already had prepared and tabled the business plan for AgriCorp. I thought you said that, and I'm just asking, if you have done that, why you cannot give us a copy of that and the highlights of it. That, I believe, is what he said.
Mr Danford: I'm sorry if I misinterpreted what the member said. I referred to the ministry plan.
Mr Phillips: Aren't we debating AgriCorp?
Mr Danford: Yes, and if I made an error there and misinterpreted, or you misinterpreted what I'd intended to say, then that's my mistake.
Mr Crozier: How can you misinterpret what a person intends to say?
The Chair: Could I just intervene for a minute? I think Mr Danford is saying that he was referring to the Ministry of Agriculture's business plan as opposed to an AgriCorp business plan. If that doesn't help, then I'll stay out of it.
Mrs Boyd: I am really very puzzled about the reluctance to undertake a commitment to table these business plans. It certainly is what the government is asking of all its transfer payment agencies; it's what the government is asking of all its ministries and all the sections within its ministries.
1740
The member was quite right to say that to the extent that one can even describe what was tabled as a business plan -- something was tabled; it didn't look much like a business plan that anyone would ever be able to borrow any money on or be able to run a business on in reality -- if the member considered it important that the government tabled its business plans for the ministries, surely the member understands the real contradiction in his position that AgriCorp should not be required to give a business plan. This government and, frankly, previous governments have required exactly that of agencies, those that operate at arm's length and those that do not: to have business plans and to explain to the public how those operate. I can't understand why the member thinks this is an issue.
Mr Hampton: Let me enter into this and speculate about to why the government doesn't want to issue this business plan.
The real issue here has to do with services that used to be provided by the Ministry of Agriculture to farmers; these services were provided to them because they were farmers in the province, and no charges were made for these services. I suggest that what the government is planning to do ties into some of the earlier votes we've had; the government now intends to move a number of these services over to AgriCorp and start charging for them; thus the government's opposition to any amendments that limit the government's capacity to charge assessments or fees or costs. I suspect the reason the government doesn't want to table an AgriCorp business plan is because one would see right away from the AgriCorp business plan how detailed the fees, assessments and costs are that farmers are now going to be asked to pay. Again, it would be for services they haven't had to pay for in the past.
The Chair: Any further debate?
Mr Hoy has moved an amendment to section 14 of schedule A --
Mr Hampton: Mr Chair, I speculated on something. I would hope that the government would respond.
Mr Klees: Not on speculation.
Mr Hampton: It sounds like my speculation is indeed correct.
The Chair: Mr Hoy has moved an amendment to section 14 of schedule A. Is it the wish of this committee that this amendment carry?
All those in favour say "aye."
All those opposed say "nay."
In my opinion, the nays have it. I declare the amendment lost.
Shall section 14 carry? Carried.
Section 15.
Mr Danford: I move that clause 15(a) of schedule A to the bill be amended by striking out "subsection (2)" in the sixth line and substituting "subsection 16(1)."
Mr Hoy: We actually have a great deal of difficulty with all of section 15, clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d). It is of particular concern to us that the bill says "that any class of persons is required to pay to AgriCorp or a corporation described in subsection" and now they want to amend that subsection.
We have a great deal of difficulty with this part of the bill. We will be voting against this subsection because we don't feel that section 15 has any merit at all. The minister has said in the past that other governments liked AgriCorp legislation. I have a copy of Bill 53 brought in by the Honourable E. Buchanan, June 11, 1992, and this section does not exist in, we'll call it, the older bill, did not exist in our bill either. We see a proliferation of fees, the opportunity for charging persons fees through AgriCorp for services they may not even deliver.
They can amend this clause, and likely will, but the point is, we don't like any part of section 15(a) through (d).
Mr Danford: The amendment corrects an error in section 15. In an earlier draft it was referred to in this section and that sixth line should be deleted and this brings everything up and clarifies it, first of all, and makes it correct. That's the purpose of the amendment.
The Chair: Mr Danford has moved an amendment to schedule A to the bill, clause 15(a), AgriCorp Act, 1996. Is it the wish of the committee that this amendment carry?
All those in favour say "aye."
All those opposed say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
I declare the motion carried.
Mr Hoy: I move that section 15 of schedule A to the bill be struck out and replaced with the following:
"AgriCorp shall regularly consult with farm organizations in the conduct of its business."
As I mentioned in the previous amendment brought in by the government, we have a great deal of difficulty with this whole section 15.
Mr Hampton: Any clear reading of section 15 shows that this is the section of the bill where the government intends to impose levies, charges, fees, service charges and other types of expenses on people who receive services from AgriCorp, and these will be services that were formerly free to farmers. Formerly it was part of the infrastructure that would have been provided to farmers in the province to assist them in doing business, to assist them in farming.
Under this section the government will have the capacity to impose all these different kinds of fees, charges and costs, and it goes back to the point I think a number of us have been trying to make here, that really what this bill is about is imposing a whole bunch of hidden taxes on farmers and imposing a whole bunch of new costs on farmers for carrying on the business and for carrying on the kinds of activities they've carried on in the past. I think the government should just have the honesty to come out and say that.
Mr Hoy: To this section, particularly "that any class of persons is required to pay," even in the House I asked the minister if he would withdraw this, in that he seemed to feel that he did not require any fees. To the member for Scarborough Centre in the House, he did not answer his question on what type of fees would be involved with AgriCorp. I too, following the member opposite's question, gave the minister an opportunity to describe what fees he was thinking about. If memory is correct, he talked about premiums, which have nothing to do with the administration of AgriCorp. Premiums are negotiated between the federal and provincial government and the farmers.
1750
We're talking about fees that may be imposed on persons of any class. They may not even use AgriCorp. We may be talking about fees for when you go to your ag office. We may be talking about a user fee for your farm property tax rebate, run through AgriCorp. Those are just a couple of examples in this whole section 15, which did not exist in previous bills. In order to have it brought to our liking, we have made this amendment.
Mr Danford: What this section does, as you will find all the way through the bill, it allows the commission to deal with flexibility and to manage any business, any function. They have to have that flexibility to deal with all the things that will come under their purview in representing the industry and the farmers and the processors and everything that's involved with that industry. This allows that commission to have that flexibility to deal with the matters before them and to make those decisions necessary.
It's interesting that the member would talk about levies. Certainly levies are not new to the agriculture industry. They've been in place for a number of years. There were superior court rulings in 1978. I know myself, as a milk producer, in working under the Milk Act and the Ontario Milk Marketing Board, levies were assessed from time to time to deal with different promotions or whatever was necessary within that industry. There's nothing different than has been practised for decades in this province of Ontario. This simply allows the commission to do the job that their producers and their industry are asking them to do.
Mr Phillips: To join in the debate a little bit more, we now are seeing what the government is all about. What you're about is finding money for your 30% tax cut, and the way you're doing that is you're imposing user fees on all sorts of people. The reason I raise this is so our farm community can appreciate the pattern. You ran on a campaign of saying you would not impose user fees or copayments on drugs. You made that big promise to all the people of Ontario. As a matter of fact, the document here said you looked at the federal budget and you've taken all of that into account. So you ran on a campaign that you would not impose user fees or copayments on drugs. Two weeks from now, as you know, there is going to be a major user fee imposed on drugs.
We had a huge debate around here on what was called Bill 26, the omnibus bill, and what was it all about? It was about saying to municipalities, "Sorry, we're going to cut your support dramatically, but we're going to give you the flexibility to go out and impose a whole bunch of new user fees." I don't know what it's like in your municipality, but my municipality is imposing user fee after user fee after user fee.
So we see a pattern here. I just want to alert our farm community that the pattern is that the government is going to cut its spending to fund a 30% tax cut and that it will benefit the most well-off in our province. I can assure you that this will result in user fee after user fee. In some respects, those who are best able to pay them won't find it a huge penalty, but those who may be struggling will find it a huge penalty. It's part of the pattern, and that's why we raise it.
We sit here day after day and see where this government is heading, and it is, "We're going to cut personal income tax and we're going to impose all sorts of new user fees." This is just part of the pattern. I think the public needs to know that.
Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): I keep hearing on the opposition side --
The Chair: I'm sorry, you have to be in your own seat to speak.
Mr Hoy: In the paragraph that gives us the most difficulty, not to say that all of them do not, "fixing and imposing levies or charges, other than the fees and service charges mentioned in subsection 3(2)," which is way back over here, it says:
"AgriCorp may,
"(a) establish and collect fees and service charges related to the exercise of its...duties;
"(b) establish and collect penalties for the late payment of the fees and service charges...; and
"(c) on such conditions as it considers proper, lend money between the funds...."
But over here it says after subsection 3(2) "that any class of persons is required to pay to AgriCorp or a corporation" fees.
We have a great deal of difficulty seeing why you need this in the bill. I asked the minister to take it out and he would not. Previous bills do not have this language. You have the fee-setting in the third section of the bill. This is an expansion, we believe, of opportunities that lie ahead of you perhaps to charge a fee to the property tax rebate or any number of things you might choose.
I've met farmers who believe that the whole Ministry of Agriculture can be run through this act. We know that this government has an appetite for user fees. If they don't institute them themselves, they really don't mind if others do. We have example after example of user fees in the last six months, 12 months as never seen before in Ontario. Even though you may now say, "We have an idea of what user fees we have in mind," this seems to give too much scope. As I said, this government has an appetite for user fees.
The Chair: Mr Beaubien.
Mr Beaubien: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I'm in my seat now. I've learned something today.
With regard to the comments of the opposition, it's too bad that the member for Essex South just left the chamber, because he's a former insurance broker. I recall probably 12, 14 years ago, with the insurance industry in Ontario, that we became self-regulated. But first let me tell you that whenever there is change, there is concern. I was concerned and somewhat opposed to becoming self-regulated under the Registered Insurance Brokers of Ontario.
If the member for Essex South were present in the House today, I am sure he could vouch that the system has worked. Insurance brokers in Ontario have become self-regulated. They look after their own affairs. They're well qualified to look after their own affairs just like farmers in this province can darn well look after their own affairs and regulate themselves. If they don't abide by the rules and regulations, they can charge their own fees.
Mr Hoy: The government should know that the operation of crop insurance today has some similarities to general insurance, but they do not mirror each other. There was great involvement in the Crop Insurance Act (Ontario) prior to today. The premiums are cost-shared between the federal and provincial governments and farmers. We don't have that in other insurance businesses. They have to be actuarially sound. Premiums can't be set that do not leave the Crop Insurance Commission of Ontario in the red.
We're not worried about the premium side of it; it's the administration we are worried about. The administration of crop insurance is cost-shared between the federal and provincial governments, another thing general insurance does not have. The administration of crop insurance last year was $10 million. We've just heard the government say it doesn't want anyone to know what the directives are from the minister to AgriCorp. They don't want anyone to know what the AgriCorp business plan is back to the minister, therefore we're very worried about whether you're going to try and whittle down the provincial share of administration.
1800
The farm community has no qualms if you're going to charge a fee on an NSF cheque, and frankly neither do I, but in this House no one wants to speak about what fees you may put in place. Particularly the minister, when questioned, goes off on some tangent that doesn't come close to fees. Ask the member for Scarborough Centre.
We can see certain business items such as a charge for an NSF cheque to be fine, but if you're going right into the administration of crop insurance or any other body that will be run under AgriCorp, we have great concerns. You just voted down an amendment that said you would not charge for mortar and bricks, that you would not charge fees for automobiles, wages or other packages of benefits; even by your actions you are really saying, "We're not sure where those fees will be today, tomorrow or in the future," and I think this particular motion to section 15 of schedule A is imperative.
Mr Crozier: I had been taught that it's unparliamentary in this place to refer not only once but several times to a member not being in his place, but let me assure you in this case it doesn't bother me. I was sitting in the west lobby watching this on TV, the way many people are at home, and seeing the sham that's being carried on, that the government amendments of course will pass and the opposition amendments of course won't pass.
In the comparison the member made about the insurance industry I think he's trying to compare apples and tomatoes. In the case of the insurance industry, I don't hear that the Ministry of Finance is trying to open up a Pandora's box of being able to charge fees, which is what the government is trying to do in this case. I don't see this as a comparison, where the Ministry of Finance in the past has provided certain services and where in this case the farm community of Ontario is now going to be charged a whole array of fees. As it's been pointed out by several of my colleagues, they want to cut back on funds that are available to the Ministry of Agriculture, notwithstanding the fact that they also promised in the election just a year ago that they would never do this.
The comparison you're trying to make just doesn't wash. We have an instance here where my colleague and others have pointed out that you have this appetite for fees, and that doesn't compare to the insurance industry at all.
The Chair: Mr Hoy has moved amendment to schedule A of the bill, section 15. Is it the wish of the committee that this amendment carry?
All those in favour, say "aye."
All those opposed, say "nay."
In my opinion, the nays have it. I declare the amendment lost.
Shall section 15, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall sections 16 through 19 carry? Carried.
Shall schedule A, as amended, form part of the bill? Carried.
Schedule B: Shall sections 1 through 3 carry? Carried.
Section 4.
Mr Hoy: I move that subsection 4(2) of schedule B to the bill be repealed and the following substituted:
"Fees
"(2) The institute shall not establish or collect fees or service charges related to the exercise of its powers or the carrying out of its duties unless, before establishing and collecting the fees or service charges, as the case may be,
"(a) it has consulted with all affected agriculture associations on the fees or service charges, as the case may be; and
"(b) the assembly has approved the fees or service charges, as the case may be."
This section is also brought in to protect the farmers of Ontario from what could be the expanded use of fees. The wording, I think, is quite clear, that we want consultation to go on. These changes going through in this legislation are mostly administrative and not legislative, so in order to protect the farmers of Ontario, and indeed the industry as a whole, we believe that this change to the fee structure will be for the benefit of the farmers in the years to come.
The Chair: Is it the pleasure of the committee that this amendment carry?
All those in favour say "aye."
All those opposed say "nay."
In my opinion, the nays have it.
I declare the amendment lost.
Shall sections 4 through 15 carry? Carried.
Section 16.
Mr Danford: I move that section 16 of schedule B to the bill be amended by adding at the beginning "Subject to subsection 4(4)."
The Chair: Is it the wish of the committee that this amendment carry? Carried.
Shall section 16, as amended, form part of the bill? Carried.
Shall sections 17 through 23, schedule B, carry? Carried.
Shall schedule B, as amended, form part of the bill? Carried.
Shall sections 1 through 16, schedule C, carry? Carried.
Shall schedule C form part of the bill? Agreed.
1810
Schedule D.
Mr Danford: I move that section 1 of schedule D to the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"(2) The definition of `tribunal' in section 1 of the Farm Products Grades and Sales Act, as enacted by the Statutes of Ontario, 1994, chapter 27, section 19, is repealed."
The Chair: Is it the wish of the House that this amendment carry? Carried.
Shall section 1, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall sections 2 through 7, schedule D, carry? Carried.
Shall schedule D, as amended, form part of the bill? Agreed.
Schedule E: Shall sections 1 through 6 carry? Carried.
Shall section E form part of the bill? Agreed.
Schedule F: Shall sections 1 through 21 carry? Carried.
Shall schedule F form part of the bill? Agreed.
Schedule G: Shall sections 1 through 11 carry? Carried.
Shall schedule G form part of the bill? Agreed.
Schedule H: Shall sections 1 through 3 carry? Carried.
Section 4.
Mr Cleary: I move that section 29(2) of the Milk Act, as set out in section 4 of schedule H to the bill, be repealed and the following substituted:
"Commission's recommendation
"(2) If the majority of the producers in Ontario of a milk product who vote have voted in favour of a levy or charge to support a promotion-research agency, the commission may recommend to the minister that the levy or charge be established."
I think it's very important to be open with all the producers. The majority should rule in anything. I know that the world has got small now and you never know what is ahead of us. I think it's very important to have this in the act.
Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I wonder of the member for Cornwall could explain to me if he has any idea what the amount of the levy would be to those producers, because it's obviously a very significant amendment that he's placing, in his view, and it also would have a significant impact on the producers themselves. Do you have any idea what the impact would be in terms of the levy?
Mr Cleary: Farmers are not fools. They know what they want. They should have the opportunity. They've managed their own businesses for a long time and I don't think we should take that away from them. They have a great opportunity, and with this modern technology they have now, I think they know what they want. The majority should rule, and if they vote in favour of anything, they should have that opportunity and this Legislature shouldn't dictate to them what to do.
Mr Hoy: I wish the member for Mississauga South had been here earlier when we were talking about fees and levies. You seem to have a great concern that they might be large. I appreciate your question. Earlier your own colleagues had very little regard for fees: proliferation of fees, introduction of fees or expansion of fees. But I really do appreciate your question as we try to explain to the members opposite that farmers can ill afford fees unless it's determined of their own regard.
Mrs Marland: I just would like to tell you that I was not present in the House, but I have been watching the proceedings on television. My question was not with any inference attached, I respectfully suggest to the member for Cornwall. It was a sincere question on my part. This is committee of the whole House. I was just interested in being a participant with that question. There was nothing behind it on my part and there isn't anything now.
Mr Cleary: I'm sorry if I said something I shouldn't have said, but I know that the world has got small now and there are many products coming into Ontario from other countries. I think farmers, as I said earlier, are smart people. They would like to have the same opportunity here in Ontario as they have in other countries. I have talked to many farmers and they feel very strongly about the majority rules.
Mr Danford: I appreciate the comments from the member for Cornwall. If you look and follow what is proposed through the act, certainly the commission will be acting on behalf of all those milk producers. Nothing has really changed. There was a milk marketing board and the Ontario dairy farmers that represent them have always acted in that same way and have adequately represented all the aspects of doing business on behalf of the milk producers in Ontario.
I'd like to finalize by a comment from John Karn, the present chairman of the organization with regard to the milk producers of Ontario. I'll quote the whole thing:
"Although it is not the intention at this time for dairy farmers of Ontario to pursue the establishment of a national promotion research agency" -- which the bill allows -- "they do not support the proposed requirement for a producer vote." That is from the chairman of the board that represents them at this point in time. Point made.
1820
The Chair: Is it the wish of this committee that the amendment carry?
All those in favour, say "aye."
All those opposed, say "nay."
In my opinion, the nays have it.
I declare the amendment lost.
Shall sections 4 and 5 of schedule H carry? Carried.
Mr Crozier: A point of clarification, Mr Chair: When you vote in committee of the whole, and I need your assistance on this, can you vote if you're not sitting in your place? I'm just asking whether you can say "aye" or "nay."
Interjections.
The Chair: Order. The only time the Chair would object to someone voting out of their own chair in committee of the whole is during a recorded vote.
Shall section H stand as part of the bill? Agreed.
Is it the wish of this committee that schedule I be carried? Carried.
Shall schedule I stand as part of the bill? It is agreed.
Is it agreed that schedule J, sections 1 and 2 be carried. Carried.
Shall schedule J stand as part of the bill? It is agreed.
Shall the bill, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall I report the bill, as amended, to the House? It is agreed.
Hon Brenda Elliott (Minister of Environment and Energy): I move that the committee rise and report the bill to the House.
The Chair: Is it the wish of the committee that the motion carry? Carried.
The committee of the whole House begs to report one bill with certain amendments and asks for leave to sit again.
The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.
MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LE MINISTÈRE DE L'AGRICULTURE, DE L'ALIMENTATION ET DES AFFAIRES RURALES
Mr Danford, on behalf of Mr Villeneuve, moved third reading of the following bill:
Bill 46, An Act to amend or revoke various statutes administered by or affecting the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs and to enact other statutes administered by the Ministry / Projet de loi 46, Loi modifiant ou abrogeant diverses lois appliquées par le ministère de l'Agriculture, de l'Alimentation et des Affaires rurales, ou qui touchent ce ministère, et visant à édicter d'autres lois appliquées par le ministère.
Mr Harry Danford (Hastings-Peterborough): It's a great pleasure for me to have the opportunity to have moved third reading and to again speak on the agrifood and rural business bill.
It is symbolic that today, as our government celebrates one year in office, our ministry's year of progress has culminated in this bill. The agrifood and rural business bill is about this government's commitment to building a strong and vibrant agriculture, food and rural sector.
I am pleased that we have made much headway this year in preparing the way for innovation and growth throughout the sector. The progress has come through partnership and consultation with the people this ministry serves.
Last fall we held table talks with stakeholders across the province to determine their views on what services this ministry and this government should provide as we head into the next century. People said OMAFRA should focus on such priorities as research and technology transfer, investment attraction and advocacy, market development and rural economic development.
We listened and we responded. OMAFRA's business plan clearly reflects the priorities of our stakeholders. It's built around four key principles: increased self-reliance for stakeholders, more efficient administration, reduced regulatory control and effective customer service.
The agrifood and rural business bill will permit us to put this business plan into action. It provides increased self-reliance and gives the industry the tools they need to get the job done. This bill streamlines administration and cuts the red tape and overregulation that's preventing the industry from realizing its full potential.
This bill enables OMAFRA to provide the services that our customers want in an effective and efficient manner. We know that this industry has the collective skills and determination to succeed. But that being said, we also know that its successful future depends upon many factors. Farmers, processors and others must continue adapting to the changing demands of the marketplace.
We will continue to build strategic alliances in partnerships and promote greater cooperation throughout the sector. To succeed in the next century, Ontario's agriculture, food and rural sector must be prepared to move in new directions. Individuals and companies alike need to innovate, to introduce new processes and new technologies and to embrace more efficient ways of doing business. That's the commitment of our stakeholders and that's the way this government does business. That's the way the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs will do business after the passage of this bill.
Just a few weeks ago, for example, we announced the $15-million Grow Ontario program, designed to boost growth, increase investment and reduce barriers to agribusiness in Ontario. We didn't create this program in a vacuum. Rather it reflects the collective thinking of the ministry's stakeholders, the men and women of the agrifood industry and the residents of rural Ontario. In Grow Ontario we'll target critical areas, such as research, marketing and competitiveness. Grow Ontario is one of the bold new directions that have come from our business plan. The agrifood and rural business bill includes the legislative changes to put that plan into action. The vision of our stakeholders will become a reality.
It's no surprise that this bill has overwhelming support from the agricultural community. They helped write it by their participation and their consultation. With this type of support, this bill and the ministry's business plan, OMAFRA is prepared for the challenges that lie ahead in building a strong, vibrant rural Ontario. That's important, because as you know, Mr Speaker, when rural Ontario prospers, all of Ontario benefits.
1830
The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Comments and questions? Further debate?
Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): We are facing the final reading of Bill 46, and I'm still concerned about the impact this legislation will have on the farming community. As I said during the second reading debate, I believe this bill contains many new user fees for farmers, some clearly visible, some hidden, all the while without improving the delivery of farm programs and service.
This bill actually takes a wrecking ball to some of the fine long-standing programs we've had in Ontario for many years. Schedule A, the AgriCorp Act, to start off, calls for the establishing of a new crown corporation to administer crop insurance. Admittedly, our government back in the late 1980s and early 1990s looked at introducing a form of AgriCorp as did the previous NDP administration. We did this largely because we were given clearly to understand that the federal government preferred to transfer their share of the funds to a crown corporation instead of directly to a provincial government.
As a concept, AgriCorp is not a bad idea. What is a bad idea, however, are the broad fee powers that are now being given to AgriCorp as a result of Bill 46. Why is this being done now? It was never considered before now because the minister has fired almost half of the entire ministry, approximately 900 people, only to have a portion of them rehired under AgriCorp.
Now farmers are going to be responsible through new user fees for the wages of these people and other administration costs. For this reason, my caucus is moving that only fees in relation to a farmer's share of crop insurance premiums be charged back to them and not program administration costs.
The pesticide inspectors: I'd like to speak a little bit about that. To move to other damaging provisions in this bill, I wonder how many members of the House and the general public know that Bill 46 effectively ends provincial inspections of Ontario-grown fruit and vegetables for pesticide residues.
On March 22 the Ministry of Agriculture and Food laid off 16 of their 20 inspectors, and I expect the remaining four will go before the end of the year. These inspectors had visited farms, packing sheds, wholesalers' stores and other markets, taking food samples to be sent to the ministry lab in Guelph.
They also ensure that all products sold in Ontario are properly marked with their country's origin, which is very important, because sometimes that's the only information the residents of Ontario get and the residents of Ontario want to buy Ontario foods.
I am not scaremongering here, as the minister likes to brush off the issue, nor am I accusing farmers of being deliberate in using too many pesticides. The simple fact is, however, that the pesticides do exist and farmers do use them, and we are fortunate here in Ontario to have responsible, caring farmers acting in concert with effective inspection programs.
Why shouldn't we? Over 100 active pesticide ingredients have been found to cause cancer in human and animals. Pesticide exposure has been linked to breast cancer, leukaemia, soft tissue sarcoma, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and cancer of the brain, lung, skin and stomach. Pesticide use also can affect human reproduction and has been linked to still births, birth defects, failure to conceive and low sperm counts in men.
The minister and the parliamentary assistant would like to dismiss this program as being unnecessary. Even the fruit and vegetable growers themselves have expressed concern to me about the program being cancelled. I know there is a tremendous record of success, passing pesticide inspectors, adding to their reputation as producers of quality fruit and vegetables in Ontario.
I know many have spoken to me about schedule H in Bill 46, for democracy for milk producers, and I had hoped that the parliamentary assistant in this House would have considered the amendment. It's the only way the ministry of milk can have full assurance the new tax has the support and approval of the majority of milk producers. I'm very disappointed that didn't happen, because the majority in any community should be the direction governments go in.
I know there are many in our community here in Ontario who depend on fresh water, fresh air and inspected food. Under the changes in this bill, I'm very concerned about what may happen in the future.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Questions or comments?
Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): I was pleased to hear the member for Cornwall talk about the inspections that have changed and the mode in how that will be done. It was raised in the House the other day.
The fruit and vegetable industry does like second-party inspections. It maintains their high-quality standards that they've always enjoyed. They want to see that maintained. I don't think they're welcoming spot checks with a shell staff.
As well, if they were to pay for their own inspections, which is possible, it creates an aura whereby you're inspecting yourself. They've always enjoyed the second-party inspection and therefore have been able to tell the public: "Yes indeed, the government checked our product. It's in the right package. It shows the right grade and it is of high quality." This can be of particular importance to markets that sell certain fruits and vegetables, and of course in the stores.
The boxes, the cases, or whatever manner in which these people sell their produce, are actually theirs. It identifies them, it identifies their farm and it identifies their outlet. They don't want to see that brought down to a lower level where some unscrupulous person may put substandard product into a package that they have always filled with a quality product.
The member had it quite correct that the fruit and vegetable industry is very concerned about the direction the government is taking, and in particular the laying off of many of the inspectors.
Mr Danford: I'm pleased to have the opportunity to respond to the members across the way. One of their concerns has certainly been addressed or brought forth here today, and it refers to the inspection. Certainly consumer health and safety is not compromised by the reduction of the grading inspectors. The testing for health and safety, to tell the fact of it, is actually the responsibility of Health Canada and agrifood Canada. Our testing will still continue.
The Ontario Ministry of Health, through the local health units, continues to monitor for food safety. Certainly there is no risk to the consumer through inspection. That high quality and those standards that have been put in place over the years, and that the industry has raised the level to, are certainly going to be there to be maintained.
This overall bill, as I said earlier and I have on other occasions, was certainly put together with consultation with all the groups involved. What this does at this point is allow those groups to directly represent the industry and deal directly with decisions that will affect the industry, not only for now but for the future. That's very important to the industry and that's the message that's been given to us.
We've had all kinds of endorsements from this. I spoke to Tony Morris as late as 2:30 this afternoon. I quote, and this is referring to AgriCorp, "AgriCorp does offer some real opportunity for the future." It's also been endorsed by both former ministers from both parties, that AgriCorp was very essential for the farming industry. Today we have the opportunity to put this in place and give the industry the tools it needs to work for and to help support the overall industry.
1840
The Acting Speaker: Further questions or comments? If not, the member for Cornwall, you have two minutes.
Mr Cleary: I'd like to thank my colleague from Essex for his remarks to reinforce second-party inspectors. He well knows from the area he comes from how important it is to have inspected food. Many people look for that to make sure they know they're getting quality food. The consumers: We have all kinds of promotions here in Ontario to buy Ontario farm products, but they want to make sure they're quality products and inspected.
The member across the way had mentioned earlier about the inspectors. The government has a poor track record on bringing in its inspectors from the health unit on what we've just been through over the past several months with the strike. Many of our plants had to almost go down or go bankrupt because there was nobody to inspect the food here in Ontario.
I do hope this works well, but I know I've been talking to some of the commodity groups too, and my interpretation of some of the things they tell me, and their members, might be somewhat different to what I've heard in the House. I know that if we had got some of the amendments through the Legislature today, I think it would have been in the government's favour to accept some of them, because it would have made more of the residents of Ontario happy that at least the government was listening to the other party.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate?
Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I want to speak very briefly, because I don't want to repeat too much of what I have said in the past. We will be voting against this legislation today because despite the fact that it might do a few good things around the fringes, what this legislation is really all about, and I submit what differs, what sets it apart from concepts of AgriCorp in the past, is that this legislation is really all about piling a whole lot of new fees, assessments, charges and in effect hidden taxes on farmers, piling these fees on farmers and requiring farmers to pay for these things when in the past these have been services that have been provided by the Ministry of Agriculture at no charge.
What, in effect, the government is trying to do -- and I wish the government would just be honest. I wish they would just come out and say, "Farmers are going to pay a lot of money now for services that used to come by right of them being farmers in Ontario, and services that used to come from the Ministry of Agriculture."
What is really going on here is this: The government is playing a shell game. The government says to people, "We are going to give you a tax break." They're going to play that up. That happens over here in the right hand. Meanwhile, on the left hand, you've got organizations like AgriCorp which are going to charge a whole bunch of assessment fees, charges, levies, and I expect they'll create some other nomenclature to designate it as well.
In effect, farmers are not going to get any sort of revenue break or tax break. They'll have an apparent one, but by the time they are finished paying all of these new fees, assessments, charges, levies, otherwise hidden taxes, because not only will they have to pay the cost of what formerly was covered under the Ministry of Agriculture budget but they'll have to pay a bunch of operating costs and a bunch of administration costs as well, and I expect we'll see even further creativity in this.
A few good things might come out of this bill on the fringes, but in essence what this is about is that this is a vehicle to hit farmers with a whole bunch of new charges, levies, hidden taxes -- nothing more than that, nothing less than that. I wish the government just had the guts to be honest, to come out and say to people, "This is what we're doing," instead of engaging in a game of flim-flam, instead of engaging in a shell game and hoping that people don't notice what's going to happen.
The reality of this is that again, and we're seeing this over and over with this government, those people who are well-to-do will be able to afford these new charges, levies and fees, but those people whom we would generally call lower-income families, middle-income families, will be hard hit by it. The net result will be again a transfer of resources and money from people who are in the lower- and middle-income categories, a transfer of resources and money from them to people who are in the higher-income category.
That's what this government is all about. We saw that earlier here today. We saw examples of it. The removal of rent control is going to transfer money out of the hands of seniors who live on fixed incomes and other people who are on lower and middle incomes into the hands of property owners and investment dealers. We saw it with the people dealing in the food services. They're going to have their wages reduced from $16 and $17 an hour down to $7.50, $8 an hour, and the signal the government is going to send is: "That's the way of the new economy. Reduce people's wages. Reduce people's quality of life."
Frankly, that's what happening in this bill. People in middle-income categories, lower-income categories are getting hit so that people in higher-income categories will get a net transfer, will be better off. I just wish the government would be more honest about its ideology, about where it's headed, about who it's working for and about who it's working against. After all, if they believe all this stuff, one would think they would be honest about it. One would think they'd want to be upfront with their ideological convictions.
I said I did not want to repeat too much of what I said before, so I'll stop there, but I will repeat this: We will not be voting in favour of this bill. We will not be voting in favour of adding a whole bunch of new charges, levies, fees, hidden taxes to lower and middle-income farmers in this province. We're going to vote against it.
The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments? Further debate?
Mr Hoy: I'm pleased to be able to speak on third reading of Bill 46. Our party shares the view that this bill is not similar to bills in regard to AgriCorp brought in in the past by both our party and the previous government. Even today, I mentioned during clause-by-clause that Bill 63 brought in by Elmer Buchanan did not have a section like section 15 in the new bill from the Tory government whereby persons of any class may be subject to fees.
Our concern about fees was such that we felt it imperative to bring in an amendment that would give some direction to AgriCorp about what fees they could not charge: They could not charge fees for salaries or other wage costs, employee benefit costs, transportation and communications costs, supplies and equipment costs, capital costs and rental costs. But what did we see? The government said: "AgriCorp will be responsible. They wouldn't do that." However, perhaps under a directive from the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, the suggestion could come from his office, "Why don't you charge fees for some of these areas?"
Further to that, the government voted this amendment down. If they truly believe AgriCorp is not going to have an expansive fee schedule or one with new fees, they would have said, "This is a good amendment." But no, they voted it down, which leads us to believe and fear that in the future, perhaps under another minister, a directive could be that these fees should be implemented.
1850
There is a flow within the bill of directives, and we asked that the minister lay a written copy of them before the assembly, either while it's sitting or during the next session. We asked that within 90 days of issuing directives, the minister would do that. This way, the public would know whether the minister of the day did give a directive to AgriCorp on specifics of fees, and since the government voted down a list of fee schedules now possibly available, we should see whether the minister himself gave directives to charge fees to recoup costs.
I believe the minister said he wanted AgriCorp to be self-reliant. If that's the case, they're going to have to come up with many dollars to achieve that goal; actually, those dollars would be in the millions of dollars, as is the case in their administrative costs. It was suggested that the community of farmers or other interested parties could be agribusiness, that they have some interest in crop insurance; that we could use the freedom of information. The government said: "We want to cut red tape. We don't want the minister giving his directives in public."
If anything is more costly and takes more time for those who are asking questions about ministerial directives -- freedom of information is one of those areas that one might call heavily laden in red tape. All the minister had to do was say, "Here is a copy of my directives to AgriCorp over the last fiscal year" or during the session of the House. A photocopy was all that was required, and I'm sure the ministry would keep these on file under minister directives. But they voted that down. The open process of this government was shut down in this regard.
As well, under the legislation AgriCorp is to provide a business plan or a report to the minister, and we asked that AgriCorp lay a written copy of the business plan or report before the assembly in session or at the beginning of the next session. The government again voted down the disclosure of the business plan for AgriCorp or any other report they might give to the minister.
Even though we have great faith in the agricultural community who may be members of AgriCorp's board -- there's nothing in the bill that says they must be farmers -- we believe that the openness and the showing of directives flowing back and forth between this crown corporation and the minister himself should be made available to the public and the agricultural community itself.
In section 15 of the bill, there's a clause that says "any class of persons" is required to pay. In actual fact, we didn't agree with any thing in section 15 of the bill. It gives the opportunity for AgriCorp to charge fees far beyond the crop insurance mandate that the government likes to say it will have. But we're also hearing from the farm community that AgriCorp may have moneys flowing to it in other regards.
We must now feel, as the government voted down our amendment, that the possibility does exist that "any class of persons," as stated here, will open the door to more user fees and more opportunities for fees. The same can be said for the section of the bill under the institute. We asked that there be a consultation with the affected agricultural associations on fees and service charges and that the assembly approve the fees or service charges, as the case may be. Again this so-called open government said no to that amendment.
There is little wonder that we are concerned about the proliferation of fees or the increase of fees already in existence, and I think the farm community has a certain nervousness about this. They believe that the AgriCorp board will be farmer members, but, as I said, there's nothing in the act that says they must be. It simply says that the board of directors of AgriCorp consists of all the members of AgriCorp, that the board shall manage and control the affairs, that the chair and vice-chairs will be appointed by the Lieutenant Governor from one or more of the board members. I don't see the word "farmer" there. I do believe, and hope, that it is the intention of the government to put farmers on the board, and we wait to see that happen.
In other jurisdictions -- I want to talk about the United States right now and how they're dealing with their farmers.
"George McCaw, the provincial government policy analyst assigned to track the [US] Farm Bill's impact on Ontario farmers, recently compared what a model farm using Kent county per-acre yields would receive under Farm Bill rules. According to McCaw's calculations, a farmer harvesting 300 acres of corn, 200 acres of soybeans and 150 acres of wheat would receive about C$28,000 from the US government during the 1997-98 crop year, regardless of market prices. The same producer would get C$24,000 dollars in 1998."
The Americans are our closest trading partner and our closest competitive nation in regard to agriculture. South America also is a competitor, and indeed there are countries around the world enhancing their agricultural productivity even as we speak. But in the United States, and I mentioned this in second reading, these farmers will be paid these amounts regardless of price and regardless of yield. Here in this country we have a safety nets system -- crop insurance being one, market revenue another -- but they only trigger when yield or price go down, and of course it is of benefit to the farm community. But in the States they're going to pay these farmers regardless of price or yield, and we have to compete with that.
How does this tie in with the user fees? Had we been in the States, we would have been getting $28,000 at the end of the year on the farm I just described, but here in Ontario we may be asking our farmers, particularly the young farmers who are just starting out, with high capital debt and very high costs to get into agriculture, and we're saying, "You may have to pay user fees for those things that the government at one time provided." I think it's going to be very difficult for us.
The member for Norfolk, on second reading debate, said, "That's a federal issue." Well, we all live in the same country. Here in this province we're going to have to protect our farmers so they can be competitive. I assume the member for Norfolk was talking about safety nets other than crop insurance, but he must remember that those are only triggered when prices go down or if there's a calamity which triggers a crop insurance claim, such as hail, which we have down in my riding currently. Vegetable crops are in very bad shape in certain areas, some wheat will not be harvested, the corn just looks like sticks, and soybeans, the last time I took a look at them, looked very bad. Of course they will avail themselves of crop insurance. They will ascertain a certain number of dollars from the crop insurance plan, and I do believe the crop insurance plan is very good. It provides a level of coverage at an affordable price.
1900
But can you imagine the farmer's chagrin when he turns around next year, after having a shortfall on his crop --
Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I regret to interrupt the member, but I think his remarks are too important to be heard by so few and I think we need a quorum in this place.
The Acting Speaker: Would you please verify if there is a quorum.
Acting Clerk Assistant (Ms Lisa Freedman): A quorum is not present, Speaker.
The acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.
Acting Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present, Speaker.
The Acting Speaker: The member for Essex-Kent.
Mr Hoy: I was speaking about a person who had been a victim of bad weather and who had suffered losses and had a crop insurance claim. It's very traumatic. The farmer of whom I speak in my riding was out in the middle of the night, walking through deep water, assessing the hail damage with a flashlight at approximately 3 o'clock in the morning. It's very traumatic to see something grow to where you're just about ready to harvest it -- and we're talking about a vegetable crop -- and then see it disappear in a few moments. Hailstorms tend to be erratic; they don't follow any particular pattern and they don't always follow the same ferocity across as they're pouring down.
It's very traumatic for them. They have to explain to their roadside customers at the roadside stand, "We don't have the produce this year, but we do hope you come back next year," and farmers always feel that next year will be better. The customers and the clientele these people have may go down the road a little way and --
Mr Laughren: Point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm sorry, maybe I miscounted, but I wonder if you could tell me if there's a quorum in the House.
The Acting Speaker: Would you please verify if there is a quorum.
Acting Clerk Assistant: A quorum is not present, Speaker.
The Acting Speaker: Call in the members
The acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.
Acting Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present, Speaker.
The Acting Speaker: The member for Essex-Kent.
Mr Hoy: As I was saying before the bells began to ring, it's very traumatic for these people. They want to maintain their customers, and they will. They're working very hard by buying product from others to have their fruit and vegetable stand operate throughout the rest of the summer, and it costs extra dollars to do that. But can you imagine the fear and the surprise they would have, after having all of this happen to them, that next year when they sign up for crop insurance, they find out they are going to have to pay a user fee for something the Ontario government has always provided to them at no cost? I'm particularly worried about the young farmers of Ontario and, as I mentioned, their high capital costs.
We heard today that this bill has been fully consulted: the groups know all about it; they like what they see. Going back to a question to the minister and some knowledge I had from talking to one of the farm representatives, I said to them, "Did you know the government was bringing in this bill?" and the answer was: "No. We knew the government was bringing in a bill. We didn't know which one. We didn't know what was in it. We were not consulted as to the contents." Yes, the minister was factual when he said, "I consulted and told them, `I'm bringing in an agricultural bill,'" but as to the contents, this group told me they knew nothing about it.
So the minister was right. He said, "I'm bringing in a bill," and that was the end of the consultation. Even as early as this month, groups have asked about making certain documents public, the ones I just described, the ministerial directives and the plans from AgriCorp back to the minister, something the government did not want to happen, and they had concerns about that. This group knew full well or should have known full well that there was a high probability that farmers would be on the board of directors of AgriCorp, which the minister repeated over and over in this House even though it wasn't the subject material of the questions that were asked of him.
So we have these concerns with the bill. We're disappointed and actually quite amazed that the government wouldn't see our amendments as a way of clearing the air, of allowing people open access to certain directives, business plans, as this government likes to call most of what they do now. We're very disappointed that they want to bunker down and not allow for the free flow of information. As I said, it may not be the minister of the day who would give us problems or give the farm community problems in regard to some of these amendments. It may be future ministers. It may be future governments.
In conclusion, our party will not be voting in favour of this bill, a bill that, as I say, has very little relationship to past bills concerning AgriCorp. As a matter of fact, the bill was an omnibus bill, repealing and appealing many, many acts, and we find it very difficult, in light of what the government did today in amendments that we thought were constructive -- we didn't think they were frivolous. We thought they were constructive for the government, and they voted them down. So we will not be voting in favour of Bill 46.
The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments? If not, further debate?
Parliamentary assistant, do you have any closing remarks?
Mr Danford: Just summation, or reply?
The Acting Speaker: There is no further debate. Therefore, would you like to close the debate?
1910
Mr Danford: It's rather interesting to hear the members from across speak about the consultation process and how the groups were involved in putting this bit of legislation together. I'm surprised the members would dispute the comments that have been put forth by our agricultural leaders for Ontario.
I'm referring directly to the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and the president, Tony Morris, whom I spoke of earlier, and his quote to me as early as this afternoon that said, for instance, that AgriCorp does offer some real opportunity for the province and for the future of the Ontario farmers.
A quote from the CFFO, the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario: "As a professional farm group, the CFFO is more than willing to see agriculture take a larger role in both the design and delivery of services to farmers. Today's farmers have a good handle on sorting out what's really important to agriculture and they are increasingly willing to be involved in charting the directions for the future."
Our Ontario Dairy Council, which represents the processors, has endorsed it. The Dairy Farmers of Ontario, the producers, have endorsed it.
This government has taken a different approach. This government is prepared to work with those farm leaders, to speak on behalf of the industry and the ag community in general. They are prepared to listen to what they've said, and you'll see why the bill was formulated in the way it was. They're prepared to provide the cooperation that's necessary to support this industry from the beginning to the end.
Today, in my opinion, marks a real opportunity, an opportunity for the industry to take charge of their destiny, to design their programs, their promotions, that will enhance the agricultural community in this province. This government has faith in the agricultural leaders of this province and the agricultural industry as a whole, the industry that provides the consumers of this province with an adequate, quality supply of food for consumers. This government, through the preparation of this bill, is committed to the continuing support of agriculture, the most important part of our Ontario economy.
The Acting Speaker: Mr Villeneuve has moved third reading of Bill 46. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain): I understand that we have unanimous consent to delay this vote until right after question period tomorrow, Thursday, June 27.
The Acting Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.
TAX CREDITS AND ECONOMIC STIMULATION ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 CRÉANT DES CRÉDITS D'IMPÔT ET VISANT À STIMULER L'ÉCONOMIE
Mr Sampson, on behalf of Mr Eves, moved second reading of the following bill:
Bill 70, An Act to provide Co-operative Education and Film Industry Tax Credits, to create Economic Growth, to implement other measures contained in the 1996 Budget and to amend certain Acts administered by the Minister of Finance / Projet de loi 70, Loi créant des crédits d'impôt pour l'éducation coopérative et l'industrie cinématographique, favorisant la croissance économique, mettant en oeuvre d'autres mesures mentionnées dans le budget de 1996 et modifiant des lois dont l'application relève du ministre des Finances.
Mr Rob Sampson (Mississauga West): This bill implements key measures of our 1996 budget to restore confidence, create jobs and spur economic growth.
Bill 70 targets three important groups. I don't know whether you knew that, but it does. It targets employers hiring post-secondary students in co-op education programs; the television and film industry, a very important industry in Ontario; and small and medium-sized businesses that need new sources of capital to expand, and of course create jobs.
Our college and university students are among the greatest strengths of our future economy. We must ensure they have enhanced employment opportunities to lead productive and independent lives. By combining academic studies and work experience, Ontario's cooperative education programs benefit both students and employers. It gives students real-world experience and market-relevant skills. It makes it easier for students to make the transition from school to the workplace. It helps students earn money to pay for their education. And it provides real economic benefits to employers and improves partnerships between businesses and educational institutions.
At present, more than 20,000 students are enrolled in co-op programs in Ontario colleges and universities. However, there is a shortage of co-op placements. That is why we are creating a cooperative education tax credit. This refundable tax credit will provide employers with a tax credit of up to 10% of the cost of hiring a student in a recognized co-op program. The credit is capped at a maximum of $1,000 per co-op placement. It will encourage employers to provide more co-op opportunities to meet existing demand. Students will benefit from more placement opportunities.
It will encourage universities and colleges to expand their co-op programs. Because of the current difficulty in placing students, universities and colleges have been reluctant to expand these types of programs. This tax credit will also encourage private sector employers to play a more active role in Ontario's education system.
The skilled graduates of co-op programs make Ontario more competitive and attract investment opportunities in the province.
Bill 70 also assists Ontario's film and television industry. Ontario, as you know, has become one of North America's major film production centres, which provides skilled jobs for many Ontarians. Ontario's highly developed film industry infrastructure attracts major film and television productions to the province. In fact, we had one of them just across the street here the other day. However, the industry faces aggressive competition from other jurisdictions. This bill implements our budget commitment to provide a film and television tax credit to maintain Ontario's competitive advantage. It will also create more jobs in this highly skilled and knowledged-based sector of the Ontario economy.
This refundable film tax credit will equal 15% of eligible labour costs. The tax credit will be doubled for first-time filmmakers on the first $240,000 of eligible labour costs. We are giving first-time filmmakers a bigger tax credit because we recognize the industry's high-risk nature. New filmmakers without a track record often face difficulties securing financing. The tax credit will provide stable and predictable support to the film industry and the television industry in Ontario. This in turn will assist the industry in planning and developing longer-term strategic alliances and securing the necessary financing. We are taking this action to ensure that Ontario remains a major player in the North American film production industry.
A large share of Ontario's new jobs will come from new and growing businesses. These businesses need sources of capital from investors who believe in their potential and are prepared to maintain the investment until the potential is fully realized.
Labour-sponsored investment funds were launched to provide capital to small and medium-sized businesses that could not raise capital in traditional ways. The response by individual investors to this particular program has been greater than expected. In fact, investors have placed more than $1 billion in these funds to kickstart this important sector of the economy.
This bill will ensure that the capital raised by labour-sponsored funds goes to Ontario entrepreneurs who need it. We are targeting emerging small businesses that are not yet big enough to raise capital in the stock market or the traditional sources of capital markets.
Bill 70 will also require that 10% --
Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It really grieves me to interrupt the member for Mississauga West, given the importance of his comments, but I wonder if you could see if there are enough people in the chamber to listen to his comments.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Would you please verify if there is quorum.
Acting Clerk Assistant (Ms Lisa Freedman): A quorum is not present, Speaker.
The acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.
Acting Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present, Speaker.
The Acting Speaker: The member for Mississauga West.
1920
Mr Sampson: I'm saddened to hear that the member is aggrieved for the third time this evening. I know he is quite interested in this particular bill, and I also know that means he must be supporting it, so I'll look forward to seeing that favourable vote when the vote is raised today.
As the member for Nickel Belt knows, Bill 70 will also require that 10% of a fund's capital to be invested must be invested in very small companies with no more than $5 million in assets and no more than 50 employees. Of the capital required to be invested, only 15% will be allowed for investment in public companies. This is something the previous government was not prepared to do. These measures will ensure that more of the money is used for the original purpose of the labour-sponsored fund, that is, investing in small businesses.
There are also concerns about the time it takes for capital to be invested in business. At present, the rules require the capital to be invested within 24 months of the fund's year-end. This lag between the time the labour-sponsored fund receives the money and the time it is invested is far too long. The money is not helping Ontario business if it's sitting in fund coffers. It should be used quickly.
This bill will require that 50% of the money collected by the end of the RSP season must be invested by December 31 of the same year, and 70% must be invested by December 31 of the following year. If these rules are not met, this bill allows for the suspending of the fund's ability to issue certificates for tax credit. These measures will ensure the labour-sponsored funds make investments in small and medium-sized businesses and that they do it more quickly, which was the intent of the original legislation.
Bill 70 will help create an environment where business can create jobs and opportunities in Ontario.
The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments?
Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): As the former spokesperson for culture in one past life, I just want to say how happy I am that this bill is being passed by our government. Obviously, investment in the film industry, we know, is a proven investment, and this is an investment through a tax credit system which is even better than direct funding. We know that the payback is something like eight to one. When we have a tax credit we are still actually giving up something, but in return for that we are creating a huge number of jobs through the ripple effect that film production gives us. It's more than just the physical sense of hotel rooms and meals; it's the rental of equipment and trucks and vehicles and furniture and all the things that go into movie production. It spans the whole sphere of employment, not only in downtown Toronto but all the other locations in our province, and I'm very proud that this is going ahead.
The Acting Speaker: Further questions or comments? If not, the member for Mississauga West, you have two minutes.
Mr Sampson: I appreciate the comments of my colleague from the riding to the south, another Mississaugan of great stature. I appreciate her comments in regard to support to the film and television industry. As I said in my earlier speech, I believe it was yesterday or perhaps the day before that there was actually a film crew outside the Legislature here, across the street, filming an episode of -- I can't recall what the actual name of the television program was, but clearly a Canadian company that was working aggressively to provide jobs in Ontario and to provide jobs in the culture and the television industry; the film industry, more specifically. I think the initiatives we've laid in front of the Legislature today in this particular bill will indeed help that industry grow and develop, as it should.
The other initiative here that we need to speak to is the initiative on small business financing and encouraging the labour-sponsored funds to make the appropriate investments. I will give credit to the member for Nickel Belt, who I believe marshalled through the House a couple of years ago, in conjunction with the federal government, the labour-sponsored funds initiatives. I think the intent was there, but the delivery was somewhat lacking, as in a number of other initiatives that were brought forward by the previous government.
What we're trying to do here is to make sure that the funds that were raised are used for the purposes for which they were raised. As I said in my delivery, there is absolutely no reason and it's no value whatsoever to Ontarians, it does not create a job for Ontarians if these funds are sitting in T-bills and other deposit instruments in the hands of the fund managers. They need to be invested; they need to be invested quickly. They need to be invested as soon as the funds are raised, and indeed that's what we're trying to do here.
Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It is my belief that the member for Nickel Belt, as a former Treasurer of the province, should have a little more respect for the decorum in the House. I don't believe food is allowed in the House, and it would appear that it is there.
The Acting Speaker: This is not a point of order.
Mr Laughren: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It is with a great deal of embarrassment and humiliation that I acknowledge the point made by the member opposite, and I would simply expand that humiliation and embarrassment to the member for Burlington South, who brought me the food in here.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate?
Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm pleased to rise to join the debate on what's called Bill 70 and to express some comments on the bill. The bill contains many elements and I want to comment on two or three of them; one is on the proposal for co-op students.
The government member who just introduced the bill pointed out that what this bill provides is for companies that engage a student using a co-op --
Interjection.
Mr Phillips: For those watching, we once again have one of the government members worried about the frivolous while I think the public is kind of interested in the substance. You can continue to make your nonsensical comments and interrupt the Legislature, but I think most of us will continue to debate the substance of the bill.
The proposal on the co-op students calls for a tax credit of $1,000, and I think the government expects there'll be about 5,000 students who take advantage of this. The problem I see is the following. One is, as the government member has acknowledged, there are 20,000 students involved in this program right now. What the government is proposing is a tax credit for 5,000 of them. This is what the government expects; 5,000 will take advantage of it. I don't think we're going to see any new co-op programs started, or very few. There are 20,000 employers out there right now with the programs. I predict that at least 5,000 of them will apply for this and will get the credit for it. For them it is an encouragement to continue the program, but for students who are looking for new opportunity, this doesn't provide it.
At the very same time this is happening, we know the government is proceeding to have a 20% increase in student tuition fees for all university students, and for some, as you know, the increase in tuition fee is far greater than 20%. For our college students the increase in tuition is 15%. We have a program, and I don't mean to belittle it, but it is 5,000 co-op students out of, already, 20,000. It will in my opinion represent very few new programs for co-op students, at the very same time that our young people are facing an enormous increase in tuition fees.
1930
We've already seen the impact of that. Enrolments are down; applications are down. I talked on the weekend to a professor at McMaster who said that in order to ensure that they get the right number of students they've lowered their entrance requirements. At the same as you are doing that, we've found that the employment numbers came out -- this is from the government itself; this is from the Ministry of Finance, dated June 7. The headline, as we all see, "Employment in Ontario decreased 17,000 in May." If you go back and look, we've now gone three months when we have lost a total of 10,000 jobs in the province of Ontario.
I think people out there expected, one year into this new government, the opposite. You are the ones who ran on a campaign of -- and I remember it very well, because it wasn't hedged at all; it didn't say, "We hope this plan will create jobs." It said -- this is the Common Sense Revolution -- "This plan will create more than 725,000 new jobs over the next five years," 145,000 new jobs a year. What are we finding? It is shocking to me, absolutely inexplicable, how it could be that in the last three months Ontario has actually lost 10,000 jobs. I would say to all of us the most tragic part of it is, it is our young people who are bearing the brunt of this.
We will see now record job losses among our young people. We have never seen our young people with as few jobs as we do right now. The reported unemployment rate for our young people is running around 16%, but anyone who has looked at the numbers will say to you that there are about 120,000 young people who have simply dropped out of the labour market. You include them -- and you ask any economist to do this; the Bank of Nova Scotia recently published something. They will tell you the real unemployment rate among our young people is well over 25%. As I've said several times in the House, that's a tragedy.
Frankly, I don't blame the new government for the situation. I am now beginning to hold the new government accountable, but I do blame them for not addressing the problem. It is an enormous problem, and for our young people I think there is no question there is a growing sense of anger and frustration, because if you look at the centre of your government's platform, it is a 30% cut in personal income tax. That's the cornerstone of your belief.
Who pays for that? It will be our young people. Our young people will not see that. They either don't have jobs, or if they do have jobs, they are at the low end. Who benefits from that? It is the best-off in our society, the most able to cope in our society, the ones who have the most advantage in our society. That's who's going to benefit from this. At the same time, we see our young people with unemployment rates of almost 30%, well above 25%. We see their tuition fees going up this year 20%. Frankly, there's no guarantee that's the end of it. As a matter of fact, without question, the government has said the cuts are not over and education cuts will continue to come.
It's 20% this year and more to come in the future. It is our young people who find they cannot get jobs, young people with unemployment rates at 30%. Frankly, in many of our communities it is our young people who are struggling right now. As the government has decided to cut its grants to municipalities, the municipalities have said, "The only way we can cope is to add user fees," and what you're now finding is user fees in libraries, in arenas, in gymnasiums, in all the things where our young people benefit the most.
The bill we're dealing with here was positioned by the government as one of the things they're doing for young people. Well, here's what it is. It is, for 5,000 young people on a co-op program, a $1,000 tax credit. That's fine, but remember, there already are 20,000 of them out there, so without question it will simply be giving 5,000 of those 20,000 a tax credit. There won't be new programs established, or very few, if any, new programs established for our young people.
I say on that aspect of the bill that for our young people who are frankly bearing the brunt in many respects of the government's cold, hard cutbacks and getting none of the rewards -- with the 30% tax cut, if you're making $150,000 in this province you are very happy with this government because you're going to get $5,000 more a year in take-home pay. But who's paying for it? Among others, it is our young people.
I wanted to talk as well about a second aspect of this bill, and that's the plans on the employer health tax. Again, the government ran on a platform of job creation, and I guarantee you the public will hold you to this promise. "This plan will create more than 725,000 new jobs over the next five years." A cornerstone of that was the employer health tax. The government said: This is a big job creator. We are going to eliminate the employer health tax on the first $400,000 of payroll.
I was frankly surprised to find that this was your big job creator. I thought that when you ran and you said to the CFIB and small business: "This is our big job creator. This is going to be a job-creating engine, the elimination of the employer health tax on the first $400,000 of payroll. This is the thing that's going to drive it, and unemployment and jobs are our number one issue."
Well, what did you do? You decided: "No, we can't implement this very quickly. We're going to implement none of it in 1995 after our election. We're going to introduce none of it in 1996." None of the employer health tax comes in in 1996. The big job creator, the one you went around saying is killing jobs, but "We're going to create jobs," none of this will be implemented in 1996. I was very surprised at that. You only begin the implementation in 1997.
By the way, at the same time -- and this was something that came as a bit of a surprise to many -- you cancelled a tax cut that my colleague Mr Laughren had introduced where the employer health tax was eliminated for the first year on new employees.
If you've read it, as I know all members have, it is the first thing in the bill. Number one: "to terminate the one-year tax holiday on increases in payroll effective at the end of 1996." That's the number one thing to do. Take the taxes up. The big taxfighters, the number one thing in this bill is to increase taxes.
Some of the members are looking incredulous, but look at the bill. Get your Bill 70 out. The very first thing you've done in the bill, proudly, "We're going to increase taxes." Many of your supporters at home will be shaking their heads saying, "I didn't know this was the first thing in the bill, a tax increase." But there it is, part I, amendments to the employer health tax. Number one, terminate that holiday. Get rid of it.
1940
That came as a bit of a surprise to many of us, because actually in a briefing --
Interjection.
Mr Phillips: No, no. In a briefing we've been told you plan to continue that. We've been told that that would continue because you were and I must say also ourselves were supportive of it when the government introduced it. It seemed logical: You hire somebody, you don't pay any health tax on the first year. But that's gone.
Furthermore, rather than implementing this right away, you're phasing it in over three years. So it will be 1998 before you keep this job-creating-engine promise. I must say that as part of that promise, by the way -- again, I do carry this document around. It's very interesting, because I now find that the things you said you were doing, you're not doing. Here's what you said you'd do on the employer health tax: "Under this plan, everyone will pay their fair share, and top quality health care will be available to all Ontarians. Specifically targeted for health care and geared to income, `Fair Share'" -- you were going to introduce a Fair Share health levy to generate $400 million in revenue. "This will completely offset the $400 million lost by abolishing the payroll tax on small business."
First you've decided, in your wisdom -- or in the cabinet's wisdom; I'm sure the backbench had nothing to say about it -- that your job-creating engine of the employer health tax is going to be delayed. And then, by the way, what you've also decided, because you went on to say in this document -- it's very important to the people of Ontario. In two weeks, July 15, you're going to be in for quite a shock, because many voted for this government on this promise. What the government said was:
"For some time now, there has been growing debate over the most effective way to ensure more responsible use of our universal health care system. In the last decade, user fees and copayments have kept rising and many health care services have been `de-listed' and are no longer covered by OHIP.
"We," Mike Harris and the gang, "looked at those kinds of options, but we decided the most effective and fair method was to give the public and health professionals alike a true and full accounting of the costs of health care, and ask individuals to pay a fair share of those costs, based on income. We believe the new Fair Share health care levy, based on the ability to pay, meets the test of fairness and the requirements of the Canada Health Act while protecting the fundamental integrity of our health care system.
"Under this plan, there will be no new user fees" and no new copayments. That was a big promise you made, and you've completely --
Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): Come on.
Mr Phillips: The member for Scarborough Centre says, "Come on." That is the promise you made: "In the last decade, user fees and copayments have kept rising.... We looked at those kinds of options," but decided something different.
I wish I could say it as bluntly as I would like to but, Mr Speaker, you don't allow it. But on July 15 you will have fundamentally violated a clear, clear campaign promise.
By the way, just while I have the floor, the Minister of Health the other day said, "Well, we didn't realize the federal government might be cutting back." That was simply not true. In fact, this document, the Common Sense Revolution, said this: "Now that the Martin federal budget has been delivered, with its significant reductions in federal transfers, it is only fair to the people of Ontario that we publish our revised" promises.
So you can't blame the federal government for this. You had the budget, you looked at the budget, and then you all published this document and you all ran on it, and on July 15 there will be a fee on drugs that you promised you wouldn't deliver.
So here we are. This bill, as you know, with the employer health tax provisions in it, where you had said it was going to be your number one job-creating engine, you have delayed it. And where you made the promises saying, "We will do this: We will replace the money lost in the employer health tax with another tax and we will guarantee that we will not increase co-payments or user fees," you violated that.
Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: To correct the record on Hansard, the member is referring to the Common Sense document. I would prefer that he made a correction in his reference to "copayments." We did not make that reference in the Common Sense document. There are no new user --
The Acting Speaker: Please take your seat. Order. This is not a point of order.
Mr Phillips: I will just say to the member, those are weasel words. You promised that you would not introduce copayments. It's very clear: "In the last decade, user fees and copayments" --
The Acting Speaker: Order. We're debating Bill 70. Please stay on the topic.
Mr Phillips: I am on the bill, the employer health tax, where the government tied the two together and made a clear promise, an absolutely clear promise: no copayment increase, no user fees. If you want to go, as I did yesterday -- my friends at the Good Shepherd lodge asked me to bring this up, and I hope they're watching right now. I was trying to be polite last night; I tend to be non-political at those things. One gentleman said: "You're being too polite. You go down there and you tell them what we think of that user fee. You tell them that they're breaking their promise." If you at the Good Shepherd lodge are watching right now, I'm doing that. I'm telling you, you broke your promise, and whether you want to hear that or not, I really don't care. There. I've delivered on that commitment to my friends at the Good Shepherd.
The reason I raise this is because the government is presenting the employer health tax as a job-creating engine. I ask this very logical question, which I think the public also asks. You ran in the campaign and said, "The employer health tax is killing jobs and the best thing we can do is to get rid of it to create jobs." You have to acknowledge that the employment situation is desperate. This document, your own budget document, shows more people out of work in 1996 than there were in 1995, and more people out of work in 1997 than there were in 1996. Your own document shows that halfway through your mandate, halfway through your government, there are going to be more people out of work than when you came into office. That is a disgrace. If I were in the back bench of the government, I'd say, "We can't live with that."
Mr Jim Flaherty (Durham Centre): That's not true.
Mr Phillips: The members say that's not true. It is true, and you'd better understand this thing, because you're being sold a bill of goods. The members on the back bench say, "No, that's not true." It is true. As a matter of fact, the Minister of Finance has acknowledged it. It's your own document: more people out of work in 1997 than in 1995. That's not me speaking. I appreciate that the back bench is perhaps in shock because they've been kept in the dark on this thing, but it is time they woke up and realized the bill of goods they're being sold.
On the employer health tax, and I'm very much on that side of the bill, it is a surprise to most of us that the one thing which, when you were in opposition, you lauded the then NDP government for bringing in is the very first thing you're eliminating. You're taking taxes up. The second thing is that when you promised you would get rid of the employer health tax for the first $400,000 of payroll, it will not happen for three and a half, almost four years, which comes, as I say, as quite a surprise to those of us who were expecting that the government actually believed what it said in its own campaign document.
I would also say that there are within the bill a couple of areas where one could be very supportive. There's no question that the film industry is a terrific industry for Ontario -- we're very competitive, we do a terrific job in it -- and we in our caucus are certainly very supportive of measures to make sure that continues.
Just to summarize on the net impression from this bill, first, for our young people this is a small bone being thrown to our young people while incredible sums of money are being taken away from them. They are facing tuition fee increases this year alone of 20%, in some areas much more than that, 15% among our college students. They are facing dismal job prospects; we have seen a continual drop in the number of jobs for our young people over the last period, and it continues well into the Common Sense Revolution. Our young people are being hit at every step of the way, and what are they hearing? Why is it all happening? "We've got to make these cuts so we can find the money for a 30% tax cut." They find that disturbing, that we cannot afford to help them along during their tough times in colleges and universities, can't afford to help them along when they need it most. Why? Because we've got to find $5,000 a year for somebody making $150,000.
1950
We sow the seeds of our own problems. Our young people, without any question, right now are extremely uneasy, extremely worried, and for good reason. In terms of this being a job-creating bill, the one thing the government said was going to create jobs -- the employer health tax -- is the one thing they've delayed.
The bill will proceed. It consists of cosmetic moves, mainly, designed to say we are doing something for young people when in reality they continue to be punished and continue to bear the brunt of a government that, in my opinion, four years from now we finally will see it for what it was: a mean-spirited government that cares for those who are best able to look after themselves and cuts adrift those who are least able to.
The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments?
Mr Laughren: I've noticed since the government changed a year ago that the member for Scarborough-Agincourt's speeches have been much better and his criticisms have been much more pointed and effective than they used to be.
Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I've noticed since the government changed about a year ago how badly the member for Scarborough-Agincourt has done, and his speeches are not nearly as pointed nor as direct as they were when I sat in opposition. I'm fearful of this, and I think I'll just go over one of these days and see what's bothering him, because it's not the same Gerry Phillips I knew in opposition.
Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I want to congratulate the shadow chancellor for his excellent oration tonight. I can see why my friend from Etobicoke West would recoil somewhat tonight, because I think the shadow chancellor gives us a very good passing of the accounts. What one can promise in the breezy irresponsibility of opposition is not always what one wants to be reminded of when one sits on the treasury bench.
The only thing better than listening to the shadow chancellor -- my friend from the Good Shepherd Lodge who just spoke was listening to a national economics panel on the radio service of the Canadian Broadcasting Corp this morning where they were trying to add up the arithmetic of Mike Harris's budgetary strategy. By their calculation, there's $8 billion still to be made up. I notice that the shadow chancellor --
Interjection.
Mr Conway: I can assure you, the people talking were not the kind of boot-lickers that some in the ideological right might expect it to have. I'm reminded of a certain billboard campaign in the city of Toronto that -- but no, that's not relevant.
Seriously, the member for Scarborough-Agincourt focuses tonight on something that I've got to believe is of concern to all, and that is, as we look at the economic forecasts and look at the unemployment numbers, surely the great concern is the prospect, or lack of prospect, facing young people.
I have been around some time. I can't recall a time, with perhaps the exception of the early 1980s, when so many well-educated, well-intentioned, hardworking young people were out trying to find a job that this economy, even in Mike Harris's world, is not producing.
The Acting Speaker: Further questions or comments? If not, the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, you have two minutes.
Mr Phillips: I appreciate the reference to "shadow." How does that expression go? I feel like a shadow of my current self.
I appreciate the comments of the former Minister of Finance. I don't often get a chance to say it -- and this is not on the topic of the bill -- but he's one individual you could never get angry with. He was completely trustworthy and I had a fine relationship with him, and I must say, to date it's the same with the current Minister of Finance.
The focus of my remarks was on jobs. Believe it or not, Ontario's just been through -- actually, the economy grew better in 1994 and in 1995 than the government is predicting it will grow in 1996 and 1997. We've been through two years of very good economic growth. It may not seem like it, but the government's own statistics show that real growth was 5.2% in 1994, 3.1% in 1995, and the government and most economists predict growth well less than 3% in 1996. In those two years of good growth, in 1994 and 1995, the number of jobs grew roughly 70,000. It looks as if 1996 job growth will not match that; we are going to see job growth of perhaps 65,000. That, the government itself says, will not even absorb the number of people entering the labour force. The government itself says there are going to be more people out of work in 1996 than there were in 1995, and then the government says there are going to be more people out of work in 1997 than there were in 1996.
We have a major employment problem, and what we're dealing with here tonight is not even a Band-Aid; it is barely a drop in dealing with this employment issue.
The Acting Speaker: The time has expired. Further debate?
Mr Laughren: I am pleased to rise and talk on this budget bill for the small amount of time that remains. It is truly fascinating to watch how the spin from the Tories has been unfolding since the election a year ago, when everyone in the province was filled with hope about jobs and tax cuts and preservation of services. That seemed to be the central message out there. Since that time, we've seen that it was nothing but a big lie -- a big lie, I said. Services have not been preserved. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see that all across the province services are not being preserved. We all know that. We all know that the tax cut is a sham; what people are getting in the tax cut is being eaten up several times over by increases in user fees. I can give you very specific examples from my own community, if you want that or if there's enough time, but that's a fact. People will laugh at the tax cut because it's being eaten up, as I said, several times over by the increase in user fees.
There's no doubt that people in the province bought into the Tory agenda, the so-called Common Sense Revolution, and for the last year they've been getting away with it and people have continued to buy into it because the impact has not really struck home yet. But you can't tell me for one minute that a year from now or two years from now the people in this province will have any delusions or illusions whatsoever about what this government is all about. It goes right back to the centrepiece of the whole thing, and I know the member for Etobicoke West is a big supporter of mine in this regard. The centrepiece for the Common Sense Revolution was the 30% cut of income taxes.
We all know that 30% income tax cut is going to be funded 100% with borrowed money -- 100%. They're borrowing money on international markets to pay for the tax cut. There is absolutely no question about it, no question about it.
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr Laughren: The baying jackals must be called to heel.
It's clear that when we were in office we borrowed lots of money. We ran up large deficits. Of course we did. But we didn't cut taxes and then borrow money to pay for the tax cut so your rich friends could be laughing all the way to the bank. That's what it's all about. You're not fooling anybody. You know and I know that 100% of that tax cut is with borrowed money. Every time you talk about the deficit, you're being laughed at, because everybody knows you're borrowing money to pay for the tax cut.
How can you argue otherwise? That's exactly what you're doing, and that's why, as my colleague from Scarborough-Agincourt was pointing out, the jobless numbers are going to increase in the next few years. It's already increased, the number of jobless in the province. Ronald Reagan tried it. Didn't you learn anything at all from your role model, Ronald Reagan? He tried the tax cut and it blew up in his face. The deficit tripled in the US because he did his tax cut and he did not get the revenues he thought he would get. And guess what? You're not going to get the revenues that you think you're going to get. It's already there in a preliminary way in the numbers that are now coming out.
What you really should be embarrassed about, you Tories, is the fact that every single penny of that tax cut is on borrowed money. That should embarrass you. If you cared a whit about the deficit in this province, you wouldn't be doing that tax cut for your wealthy friends. That's the only reason you're doing it. You have commitments to the people who funded your campaigns; that's why you've carried through on the tax cut and you're borrowing money to do it.
Mr Speaker, I move adjournment of the debate.
The Acting Speaker: Mr Laughren has moved adjournment of the debate. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: I'll ask the question again. Mr Laughren has moved the adjournment of the debate. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?
Interjections: No.
The Acting Speaker: No? Therefore, the debate will continue.
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it. I declare the motion carried.
Hon Brenda Elliott (Minister of Environment and Energy): Mr Speaker, I move adjournment of the House.
The Acting Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it. I declare the motion carried.
This House stands adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.
The House adjourned at 2003.