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

July 15, 1993

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

TAXATION OF FARM LAND

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY RETIREMENT ALLOWANCES AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES ALLOCATIONS DE RETRAITE DES DÉPUTÉS À L'ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE

TAXATION OF FARM LAND

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY RETIREMENT ALLOWANCES AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES ALLOCATIONS DE RETRAITE DES DÉPUTÉS À L'ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE

TORONTO MOLSON INDY

GOVERNMENT'S AGENDA

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

SOCIAL CONTRACT

ORANGEVILLE MEDIEVAL FESTIVAL

JACQUELINE TUINSTRA

INCOME TAX

LONG-TERM CARE

YM-YWCA AWARDS

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

TAX REBATE

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

SMALL BUSINESS

WAGE PROTECTION

CASINO GAMBLING

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

ABORTION

ACCESSORY APARTMENTS

NATIVE HUNTING AND FISHING

RETAIL STORE HOURS

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

HEALTH CARE

RETAIL STORE HOURS

HEALTH CARE

RETAIL STORE HOURS

HOMOLKA CASE

RETAIL STORE HOURS

RESTRICTIONS ON NEW DOCTORS

RETAIL SALES TAX AMENDMENT ACT (TIRE TAX REPEAL), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA TAXE DE VENTE AU DÉTAIL (ABOLITION DE LA TAXE SUR LES PNEUS)

REPRESENTATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA REPRÉSENTATION ÉLECTORALE

REPRESENTATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA REPRÉSENTATION ÉLECTORALE

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR L'ÉQUITÉ EN MATIÈRE D'EMPLOI

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 1002.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

TAXATION OF FARM LAND

Mr Villeneuve moved private member's notice of motion number 19:

That, in the opinion of this House, because the issue of the property taxation of producing farm land has become of increasing concern to farmers, as education costs have risen and as municipal service costs have increased, while over the same time farmers have not received a proportional increase in services, and that the Ontario farm property tax rebate has distorted the actual program budget of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, and that the Fair Tax Commission's Property Tax Working Group has evaded the issue by calling the taxation of farm property a farm policy issue (as opposed to a tax issue), the Government of Ontario should, first, list the farm property tax rebate as a budget item separate from the budget of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, and second, the government of Ontario should initiate, with farm and municipal organizations, a thorough and public review of the taxation of producing farm land with the aim of maintaining a viable agricultural industry and family farms in Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): The farm property tax rebate has been an issue that's been around for a number of years. However, the problem is that it's a hot potato and it has to be addressed on an annual basis. We find, from time to time, and as it occurred with the Liberals when they were in power, that the farm property tax rebate went back and forth and became a political issue. We now have a government in place where public dollars are very scarce. Again, the farm property tax rebate has been frozen. Indeed, we worry about what the next step will be.

Farmers are certainly willing to pay their fair share of property taxes if all citizens are taxed in a fair and equitable manner. The problem with the taxation of farm land is that taxes on farms are out of proportion to farmers' ability to pay and out of proportion to the services received on that portion of the farm which is farm land and farm buildings, income-producing entities.

Residents of the same municipality with much higher incomes but who live in town usually pay fewer taxes and indeed receive more services. The basic principle governing the taxation of farm land in Ontario has until now been that where farm land does not benefit from municipal services to the same extent as other properties in the municipality, it should not bear the same tax load. Today, with the province in financial difficulty, the NDP government has frozen farm property tax rebates and that principle is now being eroded.

This government is very much influenced by pressure groups. With only slightly less than 3% of the population actively involved in agriculture, the voice of agriculture is somewhat akin to a cry in the wilderness. Growing education taxes on farm land are of major concern. Education taxes today are roughly three times more than the municipal taxes and continue to climb, and yet farm land and farm buildings do not have any influence at all on the cost of education.

During the debate on farm taxes in 1970, the expected impact of escalating education taxes on farm land was countered by the government's plan to cover 60% of the education costs. That figure's been bandied about very extensively. As a matter of fact, this government promised that it would increase funding for education to 60%. That's yet to come. As a matter of fact, all different parties, at different times, promised 60% funding for education. It never quite occurred. Today we're looking at something less than 50% of the cost of education being borne by the senior level of government.

Provincial downloading on municipalities and requiring new programs from school boards have made it difficult for local governments and school boards to hold the line on taxes. In the late 1960s and early 1970s the provincial government was actually reducing costs to municipalities; for example, by taking over the administration of justice from the local tax base. In recent years, the former Liberal government and the now NDP government have created additional costs to municipalities and school boards by mandating costs. The boards and the municipalities had no say in the matter at all. The costs were simply added to their operating costs and therefore passed on to the taxpayers.

Because of escalating municipal and school board taxes, the farm tax rebate program is by far the largest spending item by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. Right now, it's frozen at $159 million, which is a very large percentage of the $550-million total budget for the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. It distorts to a large degree the Agriculture and Food budget. Farmers everywhere want to see it moved out of OMAF, either to Municipal Affairs, where indeed Hansard debates of the late 1960s and early 1970s clearly indicate it began, or to the revenue side of the Finance ministry, where the assessment functions are actually performed.

As long as rural municipalities remained agricultural in nature, with small, stable populations, the taxation of farm land was never a major problem or a major concern. Property taxation was almost entirely used to provide services to property. In the 1960s, population growth in towns and villages throughout rural Ontario led to an increase in the required municipal and social services, but not services to farm land or farm buildings. These were paid for by increases to municipal and local school taxes. Farms, being much larger, acreage-wise, than town residences, paid significantly more in taxes.

Throughout the 1960s, farm discontent rose and threats of a tax revolt started to be taken seriously. I think the government should listen to this, because indeed I think we are on the borderline of another tax revolt.

In the 1969 budget the government spoke of moving to a system of market value assessment and announced that the province would take over the assessment function across the province. The then Treasurer MacNaughton stated that farms would have to be treated differently and, indeed, in the budget of that year, and I quote, it says, "Generally, the government believes that the property tax on working farms should be considerably lower than on non-farm properties because of the limited ability of working farms to pay taxes out of current income." And the situation is even worse now than it was 30 years ago.

On June 5, 1969, the then Minister of Municipal Affairs, Darcy McKeough, announced a committee on farm assessment and taxation to report with recommendations, and the requirement of this committee was to define a working farm, to find a basis for valuing farms for tax purposes and on the manner in which farms should be taxed. The committee was to find a policy to tax working farms in a manner that was equitable with taxation of other properties that would not impose an undue burden on farms for as long as the land remained in agriculture.

When the committee reported, it recommended that "all farm land, regardless of ownership, be treated the same way. That is, land held by bona fide farmers, by developers, and by speculators should receive preferential treatment if it falls under the definition of farm land." I want members to note that even then the government shied away from trying to define a working farm. We were dealing with productive farm land, period.

The solution proposed by the government was to rebate 25% of the net property tax beginning in 1970. In 1969 the government had announced its intention to take over the property tax assessment process, which it claimed was in a shambles. While debates in the Legislature made it clear that the major need for the rebate was to counter the education tax on farm land, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Mr McKeough, pointed out that it was not possible to determine the percentage of a farm's assessment if it were split between a residence and the farm land and farm buildings.

In many, many areas, I think if a net income were used and capitalized, we would find that, indeed, the ability to pay on this farm land is certainly a lot less than many, many members in this Legislature realize.

Debates in the Legislature also indicated government members thought that rebate would be a temporary measure, necessary only until a provincial income tax or other tax reform would correct the situation. The Liberals were in agreement, with Bob Nixon supporting the government's 25% rebate, but only as a "first step towards the reform of the tax system which would, in fact, relieve the farm community at large of the responsibility to pay for a large share of education on the basis of the assessment of property."

Many years have passed. Tax reform is being talked about extensively, yet nothing has happened. Taxes rise. Municipal taxes rise in spite of the fact that our municipal politicians are doing their level best to hold the line. School boards are in the same situation.

If the Liberals are listening closely, I think they could actually pinpoint a number of rural seats in southwestern Ontario particularly that were lost by Liberal members because of the then Treasurer, Mr Nixon, trying to change the farm tax rebate. Farmers never did forgive the Liberal government of the time for playing around with what indeed was a requirement and a level playing field, where education taxes must not go on farm land and farm buildings.

Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): It's interesting today we stand up to talk about this issue and I thank the honourable member for bringing the tax issue to the House today. So many times we don't get farm-type issues brought up and it is good that they are. However, the government today cannot support this resolution at this time for a number of the reasons which actually he brought up in his remarks.

I think it's important to realize that the issue isn't whether 3% of the population in this caucus or 33% of the population are farmers. This caucus is worried about all people in this province; regardless of what percentage, they're all people. In fact, in these economic times we're in, the first government since the Depression which has actually seen income of the government decline -- I think it can be shown quite clearly that this government held the line. Yes, the farm tax rebate was frozen but, knowing full well what was on the line for actually a decrease, I think we have the proof in the pudding that this government does care.

Let's look back a little bit. You mentioned the Liberals. The Liberals did take this budgetary item over to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, and I don't think that really was much of a problem as far as I could see because many times, and in fact today and 20 years ago, as you pointed out, everybody went to the Minister of Agriculture to do the lobbying on any issue regarding rural Ontario. The fact that we actually put this in the budgetary line at the Ministry of Agriculture and Food to me is something that I can understand.

What the Liberals did was that they insulted rural Ontario. When they put it over there that was good, but they then went and had the BS, if I can, in rural terms, to try to make it look like it was new money at the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. That kind of bull, quite frankly, didn't sell in rural Ontario, and that's where the problem came in. In fact that's when the farm groups had to start saying to the government, and it came in this resolution, that we wanted to try to keep it separate as a tax issue and separate as a budgetary item. The Liberal government tried to make it look like it was a new program and we've been painted with that.

We've been very careful at the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Elmer and all of us in caucus. We don't try to play games that somehow increase or decrease the budgets of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, but the Liberals brought that in.

Let's look back a little bit further to some 20 years ago, as the member brought out. Really what it came down to back then was the fact that the farm community had very low commodity prices on all things, most of us back then were mixed farms and normally there were a couple of commodities that stayed up in price and got things through.

But the fact was that all commodities were low and costs kept increasing and we could not get our share of the dollar. We were trying things like supply management, and the minister then was working hard in a couple of those areas, but indeed we weren't making enough dollars to pay for bills.

We had to get the government's attention, we saw that this was an issue that might get the attention of the government and it went for it. But the government also realized that the general community felt that the farm community was in trouble, and it agreed that it needed to have some fairness put to it and came up with a 25% reduction. But as many people said, it was only the first step. We really felt that what we needed was to get a fair share of the dollar in our commodities.

The new term now is "value added," and this government is working very hard at that. In fact, we can look at the whole area where we've made improvements over the years. The food basket is something that many people don't remember, but it was a term with which they said the farm community got over 50 cents of every dollar back to the farm gate. We are now below that in this province, and that only tells me the Liberal and Tory governments weren't working on that issue strongly enough, and we are.

The issue -- and I deal with that in our community economic development programs that we're starting, the rural loan pool programs, the private mortgage to put stability back in agriculture to help keep some fair competition out there so that we have stability, so that I can have dollars to pay for things -- of the farm tax rebate is an issue that helps society to help the farm community as part of our stability and our sustainability of agriculture, and that's where it's at.

We go back a little bit again in history. He talks about Darcy McKeough, but I remember another urban Minister of Agriculture, Mr Timbrell, who came up with an idea. He said, "Let's just get rid of the tax completely off the farmers." I was definitely no card-carrying, yellow-dog supporter of the Conservative Party, but as a farmer and as a business person I look at everybody's ideas with an open mind and to question, and I really felt at that time that he did have a fair idea. Lots of other problems that the Tories were doing with regard to my side of income stability I think they weren't going ahead on, but that was an interesting issue, and I then said I would agree with that.

Unfortunately, some people put the big-P politics in that discussion. I look again at the Liberals. They didn't want to give any chance of fairness here. They looked at the politics instead of, "Does the guy have a good idea?" and they got rural Ontario all excited and created quite a groundswell, which I felt was about a mile wide and an inch deep. Maybe this is where it was a problem, having an urban Minister of Agriculture. He maybe didn't quite understand that a little bit and he backed off. I found that unfortunate, but you know, it's so easy to get people whipped up to criticize, rather than constructive criticism, so the then minister backed off, and that's fine.

The Liberals had their chance. They got in, and what did they do? As the honourable member pointed out, they dilly-dallied around with the program and, yes, it's a tough issue. It's been going on for 20 years, like he pointed out. Darcy McKeough set up a committee and they couldn't find an answer. I think that the energy should have been spent on my income stability side and my interest payment stability side -- something that we're doing -- but they did not come up with the answers.

What we were afraid of in rural Ontario was that they would take the dollars away from the program, but they wouldn't reinvest it in other programs for rural Ontario; they would just suck it into the big black hole.

I think, quite frankly, the member was right.

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): And you're destroying agriculture in this province, that's what you're doing.

Mr Klopp: The Liberals are getting a little frustrated, and they should. The farm community did show them at the last election. But it was more the insult that they actually tried to paint as some new money in the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and, believe me, we're not doing that and we're not going to try to do that.

So what are we doing? On the issue -- on the second part of the motion -- that we should set up a committee, yes, there was a committee set up. The Minister of Agriculture did push that it be part of the fair tax review and the Fair Tax Commission realized it is a very difficult issue and said that it should go on to a committee. There'll be some stuff coming out in December, I understand, and that may be dealt with later on by some other colleagues.

But in short, we do look at it as a society, to help in rural Ontario, for the stability of agriculture, but believe me, the real issues that we need to have for me as a farmer and for my colleagues as farmers is the stability that we can get in the value added, and that is what we're working at: the rural loan commodity pool, which allows a little more competition for a farmer to get a lower cost for his income inputs; the private mortgage pool, which is now out, allowing again some more competition out there in helping people to get loans that are maybe a little better interest rate, but also more recycled in rural Ontario; and what was announced in the budget, the community economic development, which allows us to get farmers and rural people into the value added side, so that we can regenerate and get a more fair dollar.

If I may go back to the old system, the food basket, in which farmers get more than what we're receiving now, because at one time it was in the 60-cent range and I think we had a better, healthy community. It got below the 50-cent mark and then the government, lo and behold, quit advertising that.

We need to get on and revitalize. We're doing that, but for those reasons and some others that will come out later, at this time it is good that it's at the Ministry of Agriculture and Food so that we can keep a handle on it, so that we can work towards getting a fairer system, and for those reasons I think it should stay there. We're not playing any games about the dollars of it, as the Liberals did, and I thank you very much.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I'm pleased to participate in this morning's debate. I'd like to state at the beginning that you might find it unusual that a Metropolitan Toronto member, someone who I can say clearly has no farms in her riding -- the riding of Oriole does not contain any farms -- I'm still pleased to speak on this issue because this does not have to do with simply farms. This debate this morning, and I'm pleased that it is before us, really has to do with taxes, tax fairness and particularly municipal taxes.

I think we've heard a little bit about the history and I'd like to take the few minutes that I have to put my perspective on the record as we discuss this resolution by Mr Villeneuve, which I believe is deserving and merits support. The reason I think it merits support is that this is an issue which has been before the Legislature and governments in this province for many years, as we heard.

Where did it all begin and when did it become a problem? In fact, it was in the late 1960s, early 1970s when the Conservative government at the time decided they were going to reform the property tax system in the province. In doing so, as they implemented this tax reform, the result was that farms in the province which, as people can well imagine, are very land-intensive -- and so when you have a property tax which taxes land, regardless of how it is used -- were paying significantly more taxes under Conservative tax reform than they were prior to this initiative in the late 1960s.

Of course the farmers were upset. Nobody likes to pay more taxes. But more than just being upset, what was realized fairly quickly by the Conservative Treasurer and the Conservative government at that time was that farms were paying more than their fair share because use did have some relevance to what the tax should be.

Because farms take such a large amount of land in order to produce the agricultural goods and products, whether they are farm animals or crops, the problem was that because such a large amount of land was needed, you often had a farm paying far more in taxes based on what the income of that farm was than a small business in a small rural town not too far away. It wasn't even a question of comparing what was happening on the farm to the urban big city; this was what was happening out in the county on the farm compared to a piece of property in a small town that was near the farm.

There was a recognition that this was patently unfair. It was unfair to farmers but, more than just being unfair, it was having a very serious economic impact on the farm itself. So what did the Conservative government at the time do about it? What they attempted was what I would call a Band-Aid solution.

The Band-Aid solution was in the form of a property tax rebate for farmers, based on a formula. The result of that Band-Aid was not a solution to this problem, and in fact it wasn't really support for farmers, as much as you'd like to think that now the money was going to farmers. In fact the money was really a transfer from the provincial government to the municipalities, because property taxes are paid by property owners to the municipality.

If the property owners can't afford the taxes or they are unfair, and they then don't pay their taxes, what happens is the municipalities just end up getting less and then they can't provide the needed services. Let's remember, as my friend Mr Villeneuve pointed out, it's not just for municipal services but also for education that property taxes are used.

So what you had was a situation where, as property taxes on the farms became too high and farms were failing or farmers couldn't afford to pay their taxes, then the municipality and the school board didn't have the money to provide the services that were required and the province stepped in with a rebate program to assist.

The problem was the rebate program didn't work all that well either, because the farmers, as was rightly pointed out, didn't really believe that anything was happening in the way of a support for farmers, because they knew that as a result of tax reform under the Conservatives, they were then, after the reform, paying more than their fair share. So they never considered the tax rebate as an assist to farmers, and there we had the debate percolating over the years.

I must admit, as a member of the Liberal government during the years 1985 to 1990, that we also looked at this issue and said: "What can we do to fix it? What can we do to make it fairer?" The reality is that we as well tinkered with the program in an attempt to make it fairer. It was in good faith that we attempted to fix it, but the reality is that I believe it needs a comprehensive solution that is tied generally to our whole approach to tax reform and to municipal tax reform. It's one of the reasons I'm very concerned about the result of the Fair Tax Commission.

I listened very carefully to my colleague from the NDP talking about all the things the NDP has been doing for farmers. I would say to him, in the colloquialism of the youth today, in response to his statement when he said, you know, "We are," meaning strongly supportive of farmers -- I would add the word "not," which is what the kids say today when they just disagree completely with a statement that has been made. That's because the Fair Tax Commission, which was established by the NDP -- their response to this issue was to say: "We're not going to deal with it. We're not going to do anything about it.

We're not going to deal with it. It's too complex. It's too complicated." Frankly, it is a complicated issue, but it is about tax reform; it is not about just support for farmers.

There's no question that farms and farmers in Ontario today are having a very, very difficult time. We know that with the general state of the economy, the very serious recession that we've come through, it has been province-wide in all sectors and that farms and farm incomes have suffered a devastating blow under the policies of this NDP government. But this tax rebate, the fact they have frozen it, is making the problem that much worse.

However, a complicating factor has been that over the years nobody has looked at this comprehensively. When they do, there's always this assumption that tax reform is going to mean less taxes, as opposed to looking at, how are we going to properly fund education, how are we going to properly fund needed municipal services and how are we going to make sure that business people, whether they are on the farm, in small towns or in big cities, rightly feel that they are paying their fair share?

I want to point out that in the summer of 1990, Bob Rae had all the answers. I sat in this House from 1985 to 1990; he had all the answers then. They were all simple, they were all easy, and he was going to get it done like this. I can understand the farmers' sense of betrayal in the fact that after almost three years in government, Bob Rae and the NDP have only made matters worse.

I'm going to wind up this debate this morning in support of the resolution and say that I think it is important that we look comprehensively at a problem that was first caused by the Conservatives, that wasn't fixed by the Liberals and that has been made worse by the NDP. The farmers in this province need a break and it's time we all put our heads together to find the solution.

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I'm pleased to rise this morning to speak to the resolution of the member for S-D-G & East Grenville, the resolution that states, "That, in the opinion of this House, because the issue of property taxation of producing farm land has become of increasing concern to farmers, as education costs have risen and as municipal service costs have increased, while over the same time farmers have not received a proportional increase in services, and that the Ontario farm property tax rebate has distorted the actual program budget of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, and that the Fair Tax Commission's property tax working group has evaded the issue by calling the taxation of farm property a farm policy issue (as opposed to a tax issue), the government of Ontario should, first, list the farm property tax rebate as a budget item separate from the budget of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and, second, the government of Ontario should initiate, with farm and municipal organizations, a thorough and public review of the taxation of producing farm land with the aim of maintaining a viable agricultural industry and family farms in Ontario."

I intend to support this resolution very, very strongly. I want to compliment the member for S-D-G & East Grenville for this outstanding resolution. I believe that he is the most passionate, most knowledgeable, most committed advocate for Ontario farmers in this House. We're fortunate to have him. I want to thank him once again for taking the time last year to come to Wellington county to show his interest in Wellington county and meeting with Wellington Federation of Agriculture people. He showed, certainly, his interest in agriculture throughout the province, including his own area of eastern Ontario, but as well, southwestern Ontario.

This resolution has to be put forward, because I personally, as the member for Wellington, have to question the NDP's commitment to agriculture. We've seen over the last three years agriculture relegated to a very minor portfolio by this government.

In Wellington county, I represent the farmers' interests as best I can with respect to the issues that come forward in this Legislature, and the property tax issue continues to be one of the most important issues that farmers have on their minds in Wellington county, as well as the GATT issue, I suppose. The GATT issue, I know, may be a mystery still to some members of the government side, but we have to maintain our capacity to produce food in Ontario, and I see supply management as being a very important component of that.

Our marketing system is designed to provide a stable business climate in which dairy farmers and other supply-managed commodities can plan, invest and receive reasonable compensation for their costs and labour from the market. Farmers and government representatives came together years ago to establish an efficient supply management system to stabilize the prices and the supplies of supply-managed commodities.

Quite simply, supply management is managing the supply to meet the market demand and encourage price stability, which is very, very important for the local economy in rural Ontario. But of course that's not the only important issue. The farm tax issue is probably every bit as important as the GATT issue in Wellington county.

I think that we see with this farm tax issue the fact that successive governments since 1985 have toyed with it, tinkered with it. We've heard during the course of the debate that annually it is reviewed for possible changes. It creates a great deal of uncertainty for farmers, and I think that's an important issue that has to be addressed.

We've seen consistently over the last number of years provincial downloading of mandated services and costs from the provincial government to the local governments to school boards, especially, for example, junior kindergarten, which we don't want and don't need, and other programs as well, to municipalities, where the cost is downloaded and the mandate of responsibility is downloaded from the province to local government, which has driven up local taxes. Municipal taxes are higher than they should be, higher than they need be had the province not downloaded responsibilities over the last number of years.

We should look at this farm tax rebate as an interim measure until the issue of tax inequity can be redressed, because I think most people support the principle of saying that farm land should not be taxed municipally.

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture, over the course of its discussions on this issue, has continued to put forward this view, and even most recently in March when it put forward its pre-budget

summary, it asked that the farm property tax rebate program be continued until property tax reform eliminates the need for this interim administrative mechanism. I certainly agree with them that this is an important objective.

This resolution is a modest proposal and should be supported unanimously by all members of the House. It talks about honest accounting. When we talk about separating the cost away from the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, that's an honest accounting provision that the government should address.

We're also talking about a public review, which should lead to looking at the farm tax issue in a different way so that it redresses the tax inequity that is inherent in the existing system.

The objective of this resolution is to maintain our capacity to feed ourselves and to ensure the economic survival of rural Ontario. This is an important resolution. All members should support it today. I want to compliment once again the member for S-D-G & East Grenville for putting this forward.

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): As I'm shuffling some paper here, I want to take a few moments to answer the resolution of the member for S-D-G & East Grenville. I don't think anybody in this House in any way doubts his great concern for agriculture. He is a great advocate and I know a great supporter of ethanol. I know that he's well aware of a range of problems that exist in agriculture, not only in his own area in eastern Ontario but in mine, and he's visited with local farmers. So he's well aware of the situation. I appreciate it that as a critic he takes that kind of time to really inform himself of the issues far beyond his own area.

What I will counter with -- and I will not at this point support this particular motion, though I do know where his resolution is coming from, because I think there are some things that have happened in Niagara which his resolution doesn't recognize and obviously can't because he's really dealing with a larger provincial issue. It really relates to the fact that I personally believe there are some things that have happened locally, through the municipalities and through the school boards, that really have improved the lot of the rural community as well as the urban community.

I know that there's a lot of frustration with our regional government situation. A lot of people don't necessarily like regional governments across the province. But the fact of the matter is that as a result of the regionalization within Niagara, the services that the rural community gets are the same as the urban community. Roads have been paved, the police department has been regionalized and people have access to these services in a way that they did not have when they were their own separate little communities. As a result, I think the farm community has benefited in the same way as the urban community has.

When I look at the Lincoln county school boards, both the public and the Catholic board, I'm aware of the kinds of efforts that they have undertaken to ensure that both urban residents as well as rural residents receive the kinds of services to which they are entitled as a result of their tax dollars.

In the town of Niagara-on-the-Lake, Niagara District Secondary School is in fact the performing arts high school for all of the Lincoln county board. Now, under those circumstances, one wouldn't expect that a rural community would have a performing arts centre, but in fact it does. I think we have to recognize that in some respects there are differences within rural communities, and for that reason I cannot support this motion.

I would also say that the Fair Tax Commission has done a lot of work with regard to what the member is putting forward. As someone who is supporting the Fair Tax Commission and its work, I think I have to say that when a commission like that says in one of its recommendations that it wants to retain the farm tax rebate program, or develop an equivalent program, it really says a lot for the recognition throughout the province of the fact that farming is an important factor of our economic life.

I really do think we have to give the commission and this government credit for the fact that it does recognize the value of farm land. I know, just for my residents who might be watching, that there is still work going on in the conservation easement question that is very much in the minds of farmers in my area. I support it and I know that many members of this House also support it, including the Premier.

I will yield the rest of the time to one of my other colleagues, the member for Perth.

Mr Eddy: I too rise and appreciate the opportunity to speak to the member for S-D-G & East Grenville for presenting this resolution, because I support it, and very strongly. I agree with most of his views, except of course for some of those regarding the Liberal government and my predecessor Bob Nixon. I'm prepared to tell you why.

Going back, I well remember when the Conservatives started to initiate the program. The original plan was to pay the tax on farm land, to reduce the education tax on farm land, directly to the municipalities. There was a revolt by the farmers, and indeed OFA, because they said, "If the province pays the taxes, who will own the farms?" Imagine the concern that the farmers of this province will have when they learn that the NDP government has even considered assuming ownership of all farm land in Ontario and leasing it back to farmers. I think there will be tremendous concern. Certainly there will be by me.

I have to just speak briefly to the Liberal initiative under the previous Liberal government, because the thrust there was to eliminate the farm tax rebate on land owned by developers, a great deal of which had been rezoned for development but was used for farming purposes. Why? Well, to get the farm tax rebate. That was a very substantial cost and so it was eliminated and the rule was used: farmers whose main income was from farming.

I well know about this change because I personally suffered that particular year under that program. However, it did result, of course, in a first surplus for the province of Ontario in 24 years. In 1989-90, there was a $100-million surplus, the first and I hope not the last we've seen in Ontario. I just wanted to clarify that particular item. As I say, I do support the member's initiative and this resolution because something had to be done. I have no problem with it being an OMAF program as long as the amount of money is a separate budget item and it's there.

Why am I concerned about the present system? Well, OMAF is being drastically restructured -- we know that -- and there's less service for farmers -- that's very apparent. The agricultural research funds are being drastically reduced, and this will have terrible repercussions in the agricultural industry because research is the heart of all development and progress and is very, very important.

We note that the OMAF budget is being substantially reduced each year by the government. Indeed, I believe last year or the year previous was the first time in many, many, many years that the budget for the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food had been reduced.

Another great concern is the fact that the farm tax rebate this year has been capped. This means that farmers in those municipalities that have seen an increase, and there are many -- and there have been various reasons given for that. Some of it is downloading of services and more regulations in certain respects, and of course that results in greater cost. Therefore, some municipal budgets have increased. So the capping will seriously affect, I believe, if not the farmers in those particular municipalities, farmers right across the province, because the pot in effect has been reduced.

I know the government says it's been capped, but that means reduction if the costs go up. That is very bad and it's a great concern.

The other matter of course has been mentioned, that this farm tax rebate program is a year-by-year decision and that it's time the matter was cleared up once and for all, have a program and have it as an initiative that's there and an ongoing thing and not have people wondering and rumours continuously circulating: "What are we going to do this year? We're not going to get the farm tax rebate and it's the end for us."

The other thing I have to bring before you is to mention that in some municipalities, there are two upper tiers. The county of Brant and the region of Haldimand-Norfolk, both of which are partly are in my riding of Brant-Haldimand, have a different system to the other upper-tier municipalities in this province that have been reassessed at market value assessment. In Brant and Haldimand-Norfolk, the farm tax assessment is at a higher value than residential properties. It's been separated.

The factor is higher, with higher taxation; a farm house on a farm pays higher taxes than a residential property, and with increased taxes, this means they're at an extreme disadvantage. I don't know that this is generally known. It's the only two upper tiers in the province that are that way, and I beg the government to change that system.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I welcome this opportunity to comment briefly on this important resolution from the member, a colleague from the PC caucus from Stormont, Dundas, Glengarry and East Grenville, who has been our agricultural critic for many years and who has done a fantastic job in that portfolio; well aware of the concerns of the farmers in Ontario.

This resolution calls on the provincial government to "list the farm property tax rebate as a budget item separate from the budget of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food" and to "initiate, with farm and municipal organizations, a thorough and public review of the taxation of producing farm land with the aim of maintaining a viable agricultural industry and family farms in Ontario."

I'm going to support this resolution, because, as a dairy farmer in Oro township, I know the farmers are ready, willing and able to pay their fair share of property taxes, provided that everyone else is taxed in an equitable and fair manner.

Most people in this province have a problem with the taxation of farm land. The problem is that the taxes on farms are out of proportion to a farmer's ability to pay and out of proportion to the services they receive.

Under the current government, the province of Ontario is mired in financial difficulties. The NDP has frozen the farm property tax rebate under the current government. The Ministry of Agriculture and Food's share of the provincial budget has been reduced to less than 1% of the total budget.

The NDP argues that given the serious fiscal situation the government faces with declining revenues and large deficits, ministry budgets must reflect this, and the NDP suggests that farmers experiencing financial difficulties can avail themselves of safety net programs.

I would respectfully submit that the NDP is out in left field on this and many other important issues. Overall, there is lower provincial expenditure on agriculture and food in Ontario as a percentage of the ag and food gross domestic product than in other major food-producing provinces. The NDP fails to recognize that as Ontario's second-largest source of economic activity, agriculture unquestionably ranks as a priority.

When the NDP froze the property tax rebate, it demonstrated that it declines to include our farmers in its long-term vision of the future. Farmers are struggling to survive in an economic system that does not treat them fairly or equitably.

I will be supporting this important resolution because it's time for this government to realize it is obligated to collaborate with its agricultural and rural community to ensure productivity and fair distribution.

Any modern province that fails to protect and promote its agricultural community is headed for big trouble. A province that is not reasonably self-sufficient and secure in its production of food and the preservation of the rural way of life risks losing a precious measure of independence, security and prosperity.

I thank the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry for bringing this important resolution to our attention. I urge all colleagues here in this Legislature to support it.

You know, we have been promoting ethanol. Why isn't the ministry full force behind this great promotion? Our ag budget is down, the lowest in history. The minister, I don't think, has any input around the cabinet table. The question is: Where does our food come from? The question needs to be asked.

If we help our farmers, we can build new towns. If we kill our farmers, grass will grow on the streets. Basically it's an indication of what this government's attitude is towards our agricultural community. I'm not so sure it is as forceful as I would like to see it, but I commend the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry for bringing this resolution through.

It's great to see my two granddaughters here -- the one who's still on the farm -- watching their old grandpa today have a few words to say.

Mrs Karen Haslam (Perth): I will try and be as brief as possible. Everyone knows I could speak 15 minutes on farm and agricultural issues but, given two minutes, I'll try and put it in as quickly as possible.

We're talking about a farm tax rebate. Sometimes I think people out there don't understand that this is not -- I actually had somebody say to me that they thought it was welfare for farmers. It is not. It is a rebate of the taxes they pay, but it's a rebate on unserviced land.

As to the resolution before us, I would like to say that the farm property tax rebate has already been treated as a separate budget item from the Ministry of Agriculture and Food as a base budget under the recent expenditure control plan. When setting targets for the plan, the Ministry of Finance exempted the farm tax rebate program from the Ministry of Agriculture and Food's base budget. Had the program been included in the expenditure plan, the ministry would have had to contribute far more than the $52.9 million or 8% of the budget that was actually contributed.

As members may know, the issues surrounding farm property taxes and property taxation generally are complex and challenging; issues that have been around for more than 20 years. The objective of the original farm tax rebate which was introduced in 1970 was to help ensure that taxes were paid in proportion to the benefits of services received on the property. Given that farm land did not require educational services provided from educational taxes, the idea was to relieve farmers of what was perceived as an unfair financial burden.

A 25% rebate for farm property and residence was set up at that time which was about the same as the educational tax assessed on farm land and buildings. Since then the program has gone through many changes. The rebate levels and rules of eligibility have been adjusted several times to reflect changing circumstances. Under the current program, the rebate level is at 75% excluding farm residences. We recognize that farmers continue to be concerned about the fairness of property taxation on their farm land.

We know that farmers are going through a tough period right now. We realize that this is not only a farm policy issue but also a farm land taxation issue. That's why last summer the Minister of Agriculture and Food asked the Minister of Finance to direct the Fair Tax Commission to include farm property tax issues in its deliberations. I look forward to that report.

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of my colleague from Stormont, Dundas, Glengarry and East Grenville, who has been our agricultural spokesman in eastern Ontario for a good number of years. I know in my constituency offices, when there's a farm issue and there's a good deal of discussion on any of the issues, often times the discussion ends with: "And what does Noble Villeneuve think of this? What is his position on this?" So our colleague is recognized I know in eastern Ontario as being a strong voice for agriculture.

I think this morning, after listening to the previous speakers, I would just like to dwell for a few minutes on the history of this so-called farm tax rebate. As the member for Perth said, using the term "rebate" to me is very demeaning to what this taxation problem really is.

Relative to that, as long as this so-called tax rebate policy is left in the hands of the minister and the cabinet, it's continually going to be fluxing here and changing there. I think it's time, in support of my colleague's resolution, that this problem was brought here to the Legislature and we actually legislated the future of farm land relative to its base of taxation.

They have the old saying, "If it isn't broken, don't fix it." My experience across rural Ontario was that the present way of dealing with it was fairly acceptable to the people. They were paying full tax on their residence and one acre of land. The farm buildings and the farm land were exempt from the taxation. The administrative workload and paperwork involved to send in these forms and have the money sent back out, to me, is quite unnecessary.

The problem seems to be that the government and the committees that different governments have set up have not been able to define what a farm operation is. They've used gross income, they've used many guidelines to try to define a farm. I think this definition should be becoming more clear to the government daily as it moves ahead with its stabilization fund, because in establishing that stabilization fund across the province for the farmers, it is in fact going to establish a definition of what it's going to agree is a farm operation.

When they do that, I would like to see it then in legislation in this House, so that it can't be changed by regulation of cabinet just depending on how much money is left in the minister's budget. This has been going on for a number of years: If they were looking for more revenue, they took a look and said, "Oh, we're giving too much here in a rebate."

I think it's time that changed and that we actually accept the fact that a family farm is the basis not only of rural Ontario but of Ontario. It will be a sad day for the cities and towns if we allow the rural heart of Ontario known as the family farm to disintegrate. To ask the family farm operation to pay a tax for services not rendered is really not acceptable to the future of the business.

I would like to say that the Sewell commission, for instance, going around rural Ontario, couldn't understand or wasn't able either to define a farm operation, but in going around the province, it was able to identify the fact that when we had straight rural Ontario, the needs of the farmer were very basic and the services required were basically roads, snowplowing in the wintertime and other needs that were very basic to living there. All the operations on the farm were sustained by the owner and operator of the farm. His water supply, his sewage system, you name it; it was up to him to maintain that.

He was no load whatsoever to the municipality and therefore the taxation was relative to that. After the severances and the septic systems became common throughout the province and we had the development of rural Ontario, that responsibility changed.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Villeneuve, you have two minutes.

Mr Villeneuve: I certainly want to thank all of my colleagues from all sides and all parties. Government members for Huron, St Catharines-Brock and Perth are very supportive of the farm tax rebate, and I thank them for that. It will be interesting to see how they vote. The Liberal members for Oriole and Brant-Haldimand, I certainly want to thank them. I think they show their understanding as well of the problems, the inequities that are inherent in the present tax system, and my colleagues in my own party, the members for Wellington, Simcoe East and Lanark-Renfrew, certainly very understanding of a situation that has to be corrected.

It's simply the correction of a major inequity. Farm land and farm buildings do not put any drain whatever, other than fire protection on the farm buildings -- that's the only claim to the municipal taxes: fire protection on farm buildings.

Mr Jordan: And they're volunteers.

Mr Villeneuve: And those, in most instances, are volunteer firefighters with equipment owned by the municipality.

The roads are there to service the people who live in the homes. All of the other services are people services, and certainly education is a service to people.

So always bear in mind that we now have a frozen farm tax rebate. This government saved $7.1 million by freezing it.

The Minister of Agriculture and Food this week, in reply to a question, said it will likely be a farm tax rebate not at 75% this year but at somewhere between 72% and 73%. Next year, that will drop again.

I am simply looking to lock in the farm tax rebate at its 75%, that it is not a line item in the Ministry of Agriculture and Food: $159 million there, a major inequity. It looks like farmers are sponging when indeed it's simply correcting the books.

I look forward to everyone supporting this motion.

The Deputy Speaker: The time allotted for the first ballot item has expired.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY RETIREMENT ALLOWANCES AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES ALLOCATIONS DE RETRAITE DES DÉPUTÉS À L'ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE

Mr Kormos moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 53,

An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Retirement Allowances Act / Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les allocations de retraite des députés à l'Assemblée législative.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): At the outset, I'd like to indicate to you that I propose to dedicate a portion of the 10 minutes permitted me to the member for Victoria-Haliburton, subject to unanimous consent by this assembly.

The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? There is unanimous consent; therefore I will recognize the member for Victoria-Haliburton.

Mr Kormos: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I appreciate the cooperation of the assembly.

I feel especially honoured to be able to speak to this matter, not only because it's timely and it's significant and it expresses, in my view, the wishes of the people of Welland-Thorold, including a whole lot of folks in all other parts of this province, but honoured because we're doing it in the presence of two young women from just slightly north of here, the grandchildren of the member for Simcoe East, Crystle Cooper, who's from Waterdown school in Waterdown, and Jennifer McLean -- McLean, of course, a familiar name to all of us -- from W.R. Best school in Dalston.

I'm sure they're as pleased to be here as I am this morning, and as pleased to watch their granddad at work as all of us are throughout the course of our sitting here.

I'm happy that this bill has an opportunity to be debated so soon after it was introduced for first reading on June 17, 1993. I know that after the introduction of Bill 53, my colleague the member for Windsor-Walkerville introduced a few weeks later a bill similarly reforming or amending the manner in which MPPs receive pensions. I'm not at all troubled by the fact that he introduced a bill as well, and I enjoyed and listened carefully to the debate that took place last week today, last Thursday, about that bill.

As a matter of fact, what's really remarkable is that, along with perhaps the common pause day Sunday shopping debate, was among the most non-partisan, legitimate and sincere debates that one has heard in this Legislature for perhaps a considerable period of time, if not perhaps for the whole history of this Legislature. That speaks, among other things, to the need for individual members, for any one of the 129 of us out of the 130 who are entitled to speak to matters, to be able to speak freely, independently and on behalf of our constituents.

Let me tell you very briefly and very simply, this isn't a complicated issue in so far as it's addressed by Bill 53. Right now we don't have to go through the horror stories about the cash for life, the gravy train that MPPs and, let me be fair, members of Parliament, because if you think the numbers are dramatic here at Queen's Park when it comes to entitlement to pensions for members of the Legislative Assembly, take a look at what federal members are receiving.

The issue having been dealt with, again, in a very different way in the province of Alberta, in a way that I would be modestly critical of, because I don't think it addresses the matter in a way that's entirely successful, but the fact is, the Legislature of Alberta has addressed the issue of MPPs' pensions.

This is an opportunity for Ontario to provide leadership throughout this country and to provide some direction for what seems at times a somewhat misguided, perhaps confused -- who am I to talk about confusion? -- federal Legislature that has ignored the issue practically in that it has not done anything meaningful to reform MPs' pensions. I tell you once again, the numbers there are phenomenal. The numbers here in the province are, at the very best, embarrassing. The numbers at the federal level are phenomenal.

What this bill does in a very succinct way is simply this: It limits eligibility for members of the Legislative Assembly to pensions to those who've achieved the age of 60 years. It's a very simple proposition. In my view, it's a very commonsense proposition. I submit that it puts MPPs' pensions very much in line or somewhat closer to the reality of the real world.

The fact is that most working people here in the province of Ontario don't have any pension eligibility whatsoever -- none. Talk about people who do real work in real workplaces, who make things and who make things happen, and I tell you, most of those working people in the province of Ontario have no pension eligibility. We indeed are blessed and we are part of a very small segment of the Ontario population to have any pension eligibility whatsoever.

I propose to yield the floor now to the member for Victoria-Haliburton, trusting that I will be able to rejoin this debate during the 15 minutes allowed subsequent to the introduction of the motion by the member.

The Deputy Speaker: I'd just like to advise the House that I will recognize Mr Drainville immediately, instead of going in rotation, because it is part of the 10 minutes which is normally allocated to the member when he presents his bill.

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): I thank the honourable member for yielding the floor to me to speak about this very important bill of public administration. The issue has been raised for a long time in the public about the remuneration and the pension benefits that we receive as members of Parliament.

There's no question that we live in a time and a place where there is great scrutiny on how we spend the public purse, and I think that's appropriate. There's no question that we as politicians have to be responsible for the moneys that we spend. There's no question, as well, that as we look through the whole panoply of programs and projects that are in the government what we see in fact is that there are moneys that are not all that well-spent.

Today we deal with this bill that has been brought forward by the honourable member for Welland-Thorold, a bill which essentially is a very simple bill, and what it says in principle is that members of Parliament should receive their pensionable benefits at the age of 60. If you put that into context, it makes great sense. Why should a member of Parliament receive a healthy pensionable benefit at the age of 40 or 42 or 43?

We need to look a little bit at the history of how this came about. It's not that many years ago, maybe 20 years ago and before, when the average age of a member of Parliament in this place was about 45 or 50 years of age. In a sense, this kind of pension scheme was established as a means of supporting members of Parliament who took their prime earning years and gave that up to public life. So 20 or 30 years ago, you would see members in this House who would be members who were greying. Their hair was grey; they were older people; they were giving a great deal of their career years up to public service.

What we see now is that there has been a real change in the character of politics in this province and in the kinds of people who come here to this House. We see members who are in their early 20s, we see members who are in their late 20s and early 30s, and that changes substantially the kind of pension you have. There's no question that we now are beginning to realize that we can't have the same kind of pension plan today that we had 20, 25, 30 years ago, so this is a very timely bill that's being brought forward by the member for Welland-Thorold.

I just want to touch on another issue, and that is, we live also in an age of great cynicism and negativity, when people looking at politicians and the political system have doubts about the wisdom of spending the amount of money that it costs to keep the political institutions, the democratic institutions, functioning. I have to say that, again, there is need for critique, there is need to look at the way money is spent in those institutions.

But in acknowledging the need for us to change the present pension scheme and ensure that members should get that pension at an appropriate age, such as 60, as in this bill, we also have to say that it is important that the right of having a pension after serving years in this House should be reaffirmed. Not a lot of people will end up benefiting from this. If you look at the last Parliament, a huge number of members left this House after the last election who did not walk away with any pension. So there are many people in this House now who will probably never receive a pension.

But if the people of those respective ridings continue to support their member and that member is re-elected and re-elected and gives a great deal of time to those people and to public service, it is appropriate that the person receive a pension which is appropriate to the years of service that he or she has given to the public. So I want to reaffirm that principle and say to the honourable member for Welland-Thorold, I thank him very much for bringing this bill forward and for again bringing this issue into focus for the people of Ontario.

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): I'm very pleased to rise in support of the member for Welland-Thorold's private member's bill. We had the opportunity just last week to vote as well in favour, in our caucus, of the bill put forward by the member for Windsor-Walkerville, I believe. A member of our caucus, the member for Halton Centre, has introduced a private member's bill which we're going to support as well.

I think it's important to look at these issues in context. I think some facts about the background of the extent and scope of the problem will give a little flavour to what we're dealing with. Really, I think the issue is one of perception, of telling the public that it's important that they see their politicians being responsive to the economic times, and I think this is one of those issues.

I'm not quite prepared to indulge in some of what might have been the self-flagellation about politicians that some of the speakers in favour of this bill have participated in; I think politicians do real work, at least certainly the best ones.

There are 174 past MPPs who are drawing pensions. The average age of those former members is 65. The average pension is $23,000 a year. I think when you start looking at it in that context, the real pensions are not that rich and it's not that inappropriate at 65.

What we're trying to do and what this bill is attempting to do, and our caucus support it, is get rid of those circumstances where there is seen to be unfairness, where people who are quite young are entitled to a full pension at a very early age.

One thing this bill does not address, which our caucus supports as a position of course, is the whole issue of double-dipping, and I think there may be a real concern there and one that I support. I can think of certain members of the government caucus or former government party I guess, more appropriately, who have a pension from this House, in fact a pension from the federal House as well, and are currently on the government payroll. I think that's inappropriate. That's the kind of thing that should be addressed, and to be fair there are people in each party who are in that circumstance and we should legislate to try and attempt to get rid of that.

I think we should have a new plan for a new Parliament. The leaders of the parties have to get together and do that, and they've agreed, and I think it has to happen. As I said, the principles have to be that we need to address the problem of people being able to retire at a young age with a substantial pension, and I think we have to look at the issue of double-dipping. Those are the issues I think that need to be addressed for the public.

I know the member for Welland-Thorold made reference to the Alberta situation, and I think it was highly appropriate that situation was addressed. Alberta had a very substantial and rich pension plan, in fact I think one of the richest in the country. I'm not sure how it competed with the federal pension plan, but it may in fact even have been richer.

But I think this is an important issue. I think of myself, for example. I am a relatively young member and I think it's inappropriate that I could retire in eight or nine years and be able to draw a pension at that age. I too will make the commitment that if that circumstance arises and the electors of St George-St David are kind enough to re-elect me in a few subsequent elections I would defer that pension if I'm under the current plan. If we're under a different plan, then I will live with those provisions, and I make that commitment here.

But I think it's also important to look at the opportunity that we have presented. If you look at the age of members and the length of service, more importantly, because I think that's the real criteria, that average length of service has dropped substantially. In parliaments in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and even the early 1980s, the length of service was in double digits. It was around 12 years. People came into this Parliament and served for a long time and retired.

In many cases people retired without having real access to the pension benefits, and in fact when you think about the fact that for each Parliament 130 people are elected to this assembly, the fact that there are only 174 members currently drawing a pension is not a substantial number. But the interesting thing to note through the last number of years is that the average length of service in this Parliament has dropped substantially.

My friend from Renfrew North calls it a series of electoral decapitations, and I think that's an appropriate analogy if a bit flowery language. Far be it from me to participate in that kind of flowery language.

But if you look at it, for example in the Parliament in 1985, there were 44 people who had under five years of service. That number has more than doubled in this current Parliament. There are now 90 members, I believe, maybe 91 after my election in the by-election of April 1, who have under five years of service. It's important I think to note that none of those individuals, if they are defeated in the next election, will be qualified for the pension.

What we have is an entitlement that is seen to be unjust, frankly, which has no real application because most people can't take access to it. So we have a situation and an opportunity to really create a new circumstance that people can see us moving forward, and an opportunity for reform. I think we should take advantage of it, and that's why I'm pleased to support this bill and our caucus will be supporting this and the other bills.

I think, though, there are some issues we should also look at. The lowest pension paid right now is $240 a month, so there are people who have been unjustly dealt with. I don't think $240 a month is a very rich pension and I think there's a circumstance perhaps where there is an element of unfairness, because the tradeoff really in the way this system got developed was that people were paid pensions out of line with the private sector, I think it's fair to say, as compensation for what was viewed as lower pay. It was part of a package at the time where you traded off lower pay in the public service for a pension scheme.

I think it should be dealt with as a whole. We should look at the pay package and the pension package and reform it as a whole. There are many people out there who would be taking a substantial pay cut to serve in the public service as an elected member, and I think that's an unfortunate circumstance. We need to look at that because I think the best-quality people are the kind of people the public and all of us want to serve in this Legislature, and I think there is a real impediment in the salaries paid.

That is also an issue that's in the context of making sure that what is paid to members is clear and upfront and has no hidden elements to it, no tax-free allowances. It should be a whole, it should be clear to the public, and any expenses should be done by way of receipt so that it's clear and obvious to everyone what is being done.

I think it's those kinds of issues that raise a concern in the public mind, and those are the kinds of issues we should redress. I'm pleased to be able to support this private member's bill. I think, however, it's only part of the loaf, and I'd like to see the whole loaf.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I'm pleased to have the opportunity to provide a few brief comments on private member's Bill 53,

An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Retirement Allowances Act, which was introduced by my colleague the member for Welland-Thorold and received first reading on June 17, 1993.

With this bill, the member for Welland-Thorold wants to amend the Legislative Assembly Retirement Allowances Act so that members retiring on or after January 1, 1993, would not be entitled to receive a pension until they reach the age of 60.

I never did approve of people that got pensions in their forties, and there have been several. I believe pensions are there for a purpose. They're there in the province of Ontario and other sectors for the purpose that when people are retiring, that's when they receive a pension, and not just because they're quitting one job and going to another.

If a member dies, the surviving spouse would not receive a survivor's pension until the day the member would have turned 60 years of age. That's part of this bill. However, if the member left a survivor child or children but no spouse, the children would still be entitled to an immediate survivor benefit.

I am eager to comment on this type of legislation, because I've always shown a long-time interest in this type of legislative reform. It was just last week that I spoke on the member for Windsor-Walkerville's resolution with regard to private member's Bill 58, the Legislative Assembly Statute Law Amendment Act, and on private member's Bill 57, the Election Statute Law Amendment Act, because I believe the entire process is in need of a considerable overhaul.

You may no doubt recall that I asked for an all-party consent to have the member for Windsor-Walkerville's bill referred to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly, and do you know what happened when I asked for that unanimous consent? Strangely enough, that same member was the first to object to my suggestion. In effect, he killed his own bill.

I've never seen such a show take place within this Legislature of bringing forward a bill to get some public debate and then ending up killing it. This cynical move on the part of the NDP member for Windsor-Walkerville leads me to believe that his party is not serious about reform and saving taxpayers' money. The NDP is only interested in publicity stunts.

Some of you may recall that during the late 1980s --

Interjection.

Mr McLean: -- well, he's not an NDPer -- I introduced private member's Bill 73, which was

An Act to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act, and private member's Bill 74,

An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Retirement Allowances Act.

Now, my bills aimed at both elected officials and civil servants, and those bills would have ended the practice commonly known as "double-dipping," where people receive retirement pensions from the government while also being paid as a member of a government agency, board, commission or committee. I believe it is morally wrong and I believe there must be a return to fiscal responsibility and personal integrity in the ranks of elected officials and the senior civil service.

While I support private member's Bill 53 in principle, I have some concerns about the following: Would a long-time member who's still quite young, but who retires due to ill health and is unable to find alternative employment, have to wait until the age of 60 before receiving a retirement pension? That's why I liked the age of 55. The reason I liked the age of 55 is the fact that there are many people today who work for the civil service -- there are police who retire, there are teachers who retire, there are many of the OPP who retire and at the age of 55 collect their pension.

Why are you saying now that, because you're an elected official, you can't collect yours until you're 60? That's where the member and I will disagree on the figures that are in it.

When this is referred to committee, this can be changed, depending on the input we receive from people who want to debate this. So those same concerns apply also to their surviving spouse, with regard to the age limit I've talked about. While I support the member's bill in principle, I do think it requires a bit more work.

I also believe members should not have a tax-free allowance. Their salary should be based on one salary and they pay tax on that full salary. I believe the Premier had the opportunity to do that in 1990, when they were first elected, and the public would have accepted that because of the fact they were doing away with the tax-free allowance that members get. I think that's proper and I think it's appropriate and I think members should have no free taxes on any part of their pay. They should pay on the total amount.

But I also think there's another aspect here that we're kind of forgetting. We have many senior civil servants who have been here for many years, who have retired, and they have expense accounts that nobody can get to see. They have salaries we can't get to see, unless we go through the freedom of information. At one time, it used to be in the book here in the Legislature that every salary over $30,000 was published. I think it was proper to have that done.

The other thing, that the expenses of civil servants were published, I think is proper because many civil servants in this province have credit cards, they have expense accounts that nobody knows what the expenses really are. There are some that we see when we get the estimates books with regard to certain people, and I've seen some expenditures in there up to $48,000. Grant you, it may be in the north where there's a lot of flying that the senior civil servant is doing, but there are many, many accounts in there that I sometimes wonder really where the accountability is.

When we look at and talk about elected people, I think we also should be looking at some of the senior civil servants which my bills, back at that time, looked at. We have many members who have left this House -- and I remember when my bills were before this Legislature, there were many people who spoke opposing them. Some of those people today, like Michael Breaugh, who is now a member in the federal House, is receiving a pension from this Legislature and is also on the payroll in Ottawa.

I have an interesting letter here that I cut out of the Star last week. It says, "Re 'Millions of Reasons for Furor Over MPs' Pensions', June 20, in which you mention me as a 'prime example' of 'double-dipping' -- collecting an MP's pension while working in the public sector." This individual spent 21 years as a member of Parliament and he now receives a pension. He retired from politics in 1989. He is at the age of 54 and he wanted to continue working.

"After considering a number of possibilities, both nationally and internationally and in the private sector, I decided to accept the offer to become the first president of the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development. I did so because I believe public sector work in the cause of international rights and democratic development is worthwhile both for Canada and developing countries. I now find myself accused by some of so-called sleazy 'double-dipping' because I accepted this job."

This is what this individual wrote. This individual is making over $100,000 a year in a salary paid for by the taxpayer. This individual is drawing a pension of probably $60,000 a year, approximately. This individual is not ashamed to accept his pension.

My estimation always was that you take a pension when you're retired. This individual is not retired.

This individual is Ed Broadbent, president, International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development. This is from Montreal.

Here we have members of Parliament who thinks it's fine to accept their pension, and he's not 55 years old yet, and yet get $100,000. That's just a typical example of an individual. I'm saying everybody is the same who is doing the same as he is, regardless of what party you're from. I just got that out of the paper, and that's why I read it. There were no others in there to pick out. Anybody else could write in and tell me the same thing, but I've never seen them.

There's lot of others, from all parties. There's Andy Brandt. There's all kinds of them.

Interjection: Elie.

Mr McLean: Elie Martel, George Samis. I don't know how many Liberals, but Bob Nixon was probably getting a good pension when he was in Europe.

Well, I don't agree with that and the public doesn't agree with it, and that's why we're having this debate here today, to try to bring some common sense back to the whole issue of pensions.

I believe that 55 is the right age, but I also believe that members should be paying taxes on everything. You can go on for a period of time with regard to this, but what I saw here last week certainly led me to believe that there's nothing really going to be done, because when the members indicated they supported the bill from the member for Windsor-Walkerville and then got up and stopped it from going to committee, they're playing games.

For those people out there who are listening and think we're really accomplishing something here with regard to the pensions, I don't see it. The only way we'll know if we're going to accomplish anything is today when the member for Welland-Thorold's bill is passed and it's referred to a committee where we can have some full input into it, and I congratulate the member for Welland-Thorold for bringing --

Mr Kormos: Tell them to keep watching for 30 more minutes.

Mr McLean: Just keep watching. The people will, and they'll be watching when we vote on this to find out. I'm telling you, if it's not referred to committee, then these people are not serious about pension reform.

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): It's with some pleasure that I rise to speak to my colleague's bill. My colleague is a New Democrat, and he is fighting the issues New Democrats have fought for a long time, sometimes in not the most popular way.

These are difficult times in our province, and times when we as legislators act as leaders. We must act as leaders in meeting the challenges that we face in the public service.

Recently, we've heard of the Tory federal government being under some public scrutiny for abuses of the public purse. The former Prime Minister is treating himself to a king's ransom, some $160,000 in a yard sale at the taxpayers' tab, and he'll have a handsome pension already, in addition to his salary in his law firm that he's going to so quickly. He is not going to lose from his many years of public service.

Some 25 of his cronies will be entering renewed careers with huge pensions. Politicians much younger than I am now will receive lifetime sinecures. One Carole Jacques, at the age of 32, will be receiving a $24,000-a-year pension even if she's convicted of corruption, and I believe she may even spend some time in a publicly funded facility.

Mr Kormos: Does she still get her pension?

Mr White: She will, I think, yes, and that pension will be adjusted when she reaches the age of 60.

The Senate, a singularly useless body of old hacks, which costs the public purse immense millions every year, has recently been under attack for the audacity of granting itself even further allowances. As New Democrats, we traditionally have fought against the very existence of that singular body of patronage and called for a three A Senate: abolish, abolish and abolish. At this time, our federal leader, Audrey McLaughlin, is calling for a national referendum on the future of that institution.

Canadians have long been used to thinking of Ottawa as a sanctuary for abuse of the public purse by an irrelevant breed of jurassic porkers. Perhaps because of federal scandals with so many convictions and charges for corruption and past provincial private profits for politicians, the public still looks with its jaundiced eye on our benefits.

Compared to the federal government, we have little in the way of perks. Even so, we should examine those that we do have. In regard to MPPs' pensions, something should be done to make them appropriate to the 1990s. We know that a member recently retired at the advanced age of 41. This man will have a $48,000-a-year pension as he enters a full-time managerial position. The youngest former MPP pensioner is only 39 years of age. These are exceptions, as the member opposite mentioned.

Most recipients of MPP pensions are of retirement years, yet the public deserves the assurance that we're not above the law, that those exceptions should not be tolerated and that we don't have pay privileges at their expense. The public has grown cynical of politicians and the way in which our privileges seem to be protected at their expense.

When I was first elected, I thought, like so many of my constituents, that MPPs had a fairly good pay package. I can well understand the cynicism the public feels, because I felt it myself. It was some time before I realized that the salary was in fact quite modest. Fair enough. All of us enter public life with a desire for public service, not for private profit. Still, it behooves us to make our compensation understandable, if not perfectly acceptable, to the public in general.

There are different kinds of privileges that we as members of provincial Parliament have. Members can rise on points of privilege. There are times when their ability to represent their constituents has been threatened. Parliamentary privilege refers to this privileged ability to represent the interests of the people of Ontario to the best of our ability. That's obviously a privilege that everyone can appreciate, understand and support.

We're also privileged to serve our constituents, to represent their concerns and to offer leadership within our communities. We may complain about the pressures of the job, and they're real, or the stressors; all of my colleagues are visibly much older than they were two and a half years ago, as I am. Even so, we enjoy the privilege of that leadership, we enjoy those tasks and we rise to the challenge that leadership now demands of us.

At this moment, that leadership involves eliminating ways in which we're different from other members of the public service, and not maintaining privileged pensions that are dramatically different and better than the rest of the public sector has. Privilege has several meanings for members of Parliament. Let's not allow one of them to be an illicit gain from public service.

At this moment, we're negotiating cost reductions in the pensions, wages and benefits that members of the public sector receive. It's only appropriate that we look seriously at the costs of those retirement allowances, as government members will be taking a leadership role in the social contract. The Legislative Assembly Retirement Allowances Act came into existence a generation ago. That was a time when professional careers were much more stable than they presently are. A generation ago, working men and women could expect to spend their adult lives with only one employer. Now we all retrain and professionals go through job changes every five years, on average.

As I look at my colleagues, there's not one of them, not one of us here, who would long be unemployed in another arena. Frankly, the rules of a generation ago are no longer appropriate in the 1990s. Like every other worker, we're earning moneys towards a pension. We're putting moneys away. Like any other worker, we should look forward to an adequate retirement in our senior years, but no more than any other member of the public sector.

Pension issues are hard-fought parts of collective agreements. Young men and women have struck for the pension benefits they won't see for long decades. Their families are hungry while they assert a claim upon the future.

We do not honour here those struggles by working men and women of the labour movement by continuing an easily gained privilege. We're asking other members of the public sector to join us in meeting the challenge of getting our deficit and debt down. That's an important and valid goal. We embraced this challenge a couple of years ago in terms of our salaries -- they've been frozen for some time -- just as we're asking the rest of the public sector to do now.

As members of provincial Parliament, we've had several years of wage freezes. Still, I think this bastion of privilege, a pension plan that rewards those who are still in the prime of their lives, should be changed. As a sign of our good faith to the public sector workers, we should go further with wage freezes, just as we have in the last few years. We should extend that at least until 1996.

In addition, we should amend the LARAA, the Legislative Assembly Retirement Allowances Act, along the lines that my friend the member for Welland-Thorold suggests. Our pension should be no more generous in early retirement than those that OPSEU and CUPE members have. In fact, most municipal councillors have the same pension arrangement that their employees have under OMERS. There should be no public sector leader able to say to us that we have expensive benefit packages and privileges they do not share.

None of us need this extra form of compensation. We're all capable people, most in the prime of our lives, and those of us who are approaching retirement years should have that benefit of a full pension. But for the rest of us, we do not need, nor should we need, this form of extra compensation.

Let us be up front in suggesting that we can contribute to wage and benefit savings by trimming the costs of these pension schemes. Let's remove the expensive and outdated privilege and bring it to the table as we consider how we meet the challenges of leadership in the 1990s.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I'm pleased to have the opportunity to share some thoughts with you on this very contentious issue. First of all, I'd like to commend the member for Welland-Thorold for bringing this bill forward. Since the issue was first raised, I have consistently maintained that an independent commission, such as the Commission on Election Finances, should review MPPs' pensions and make recommendations to make sure that those pensions are fair.

I don't believe that we should be the ones to formulate and decide on the matter, because I think we have a decided conflict of interest. It must be an independent body that makes the recommendations, because it is important to the public on the pension issue that the recommendations not only be fair but be seen to be fair.

Of course, in the final analysis, changes will have to be made by the Legislative Assembly, and we will have to vote on the issue, but at least if an independent body makes those initial decisions and recommendations, I believe the public will be more likely to think they are fair.

Now, having said all that, I'm nevertheless going to support the bill brought forward by the member for Welland-Thorold which makes changes to our pensions, the same as last week I supported the member for Windsor-Walkerville and the same as I will support the bill introduced by my colleague from Halton, Barbara Sullivan.

I support all of these bills, even though some of their provisions are quite different and even though they vary from bill to bill, because I think it sends an important signal. The signal is that MPPs themselves believe changes should be made.

There are some things I very strongly feel should be changed. I believe the age when MPPs receive pensions should be changed. I believe the provisions which allow double-dipping are totally unacceptable. There are changes like that which I will stand here today, even though I have a vested interest in it, and say I support. But the bottom line is that I hope passing second reading of this bill today will send the Premier a message that we want him to act and that he will ask the Commission on Election Finances to review the issue and come back with recommendations for reform.

You know, when I ran for Parliament, I didn't run because of the generous pensions, and I doubt that anyone in this chamber did. In fact, I didn't even know what my pension was until very recently, when the controversy erupted. All I know and all I knew, and this was something I found out when I received my first paycheque, was that there was a deduction off the top of 10% of my salary as a contribution to the pension fund. I knew I was going to get a pension at the end of it, but if I listen to the media's version, I would believe that I could leave Queen's Park today, after six years, and get an astronomical pension.

They reported things such as, "MPPs can leave Queen's Park after five years with a pension of up to $60,000 a year for life." Talk about raising your hopes. Another

article said, "Currently MPPs can start receiving lifetime pensions of up to 75% of their salaries immediately upon leaving politics, with as little as five years in the Legislature." If a member of the public listened to this, then they would believe that the member for Eglinton, if she walked away from this place today and resigned, would have an annual pension of $60,000, or at least a minimum of $30,000. The facts are that if I didn't run for a third term, after serving for eight years, my pension would be around $11,000 to $13,000 a year. In fact, I wouldn't be able to collect it for a while, because it's one of the few places in life I can say I'm still not old enough.

Having said that, they may not be astronomical figures, but the pension is very generous. We have to ask ourselves the question, why? Why are MPPs' pensions so generous? I believe it's because the salaries were too low, so this was their way of doing it through the back door to provide the compensation and making it up. If you look at Ontario MPPs, they're paid $44,000, and then there's the tax-free allowance of almost $15,000.

I compared that with other jurisdictions: It's $25,000 less than federal MPs; it's $15,000 less than senators. Mr Speaker, I won't tell you what I think of senators, because it undoubtedly would be unparliamentary, but let's just say I think the work we do has markedly more value than what the senators do. I'm not talking about the hockey team, either; I'm talking about those dinosaurs in Ottawa. I said I wasn't going to be unparliamentary, too.

It's $11,000 less than what MPPs in Quebec get paid. It's $5,000 less than what Metro councillors make. Our salaries are all of $2,000 more than what MPPs in Newfoundland are paid. Don't get me wrong: I think Newfoundland is a wonderful province; I've got members in my immediate family who were born there. But the responsibility of administering a province like Ontario is decidedly different than in running Newfoundland.

There are lots of reasons I love this job. There are opportunities to meet interesting and marvellous people. There are opportunities to constantly learn, opportunities to fight for what we believe in, to say what we believe. It's always a challenge and rarely boring. It's sometimes very frustrating, but rarely boring.

But I can tell you, there are other times when this job, if I may be so blunt, is the pits. There are long hours. There are evenings and weekends that we work. There's a lack of privacy. We give up family time. There's public contempt, which I personally find extremely difficult to deal with when everybody says, "All politicians are scum." Sometimes it's very thankless, and we're constant targets of the media. Somebody said to me, "I'd hate a job where you had to smile all day."

It's an uncertain life. Out of the 50 new members elected to the Liberal caucus in 1987, 38 of them were defeated in 1990, not because they didn't do a good job but because people didn't like our leader. They didn't have any pensions. They had interrupted their careers and it was very difficult for them to get back. In our caucus, for instance, we have eight lawyers who could earn far more out in the private sector; we have business people and professionals who did. They've made a sacrifice.

What I'd like to say is that if we want to attract quality people as MPPs, who will interrupt their career path for public service, then surely it's important to make sure that MPPs are paid appropriately. Let's stop doing it by the back door. End the tax-free allowances, the perks, the per diems, reform the pension system and make sure we do it right.

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): In the few minutes remaining for my party's time, I want to also participate in the debate, first of all to congratulate the member for Welland-Thorold for bringing forth a very timely topic. Ralph Klein, the Premier of Alberta, I think kind of won an election on a change of pension and pension reform.

I'm getting to be one of the old hands around here, Mr Speaker, as I guess maybe you are. You came here in 1984 and I came here the year before you, both in by-elections, and including those by-elections, we've both of us fought four elections in 10 years. It was always interesting, because your party was on the rise for a while and I came in at the decline of the Tory dynasty. As I look back, in 1983, when I was first elected, it was as the 73rd member of the governing party at that time; 17 members remain in this chamber. As I say, four elections, and not easy elections for Tories, you may have noticed. However, some of us survived.

The pensions need to be reformed -- I don't think there's any doubt about that -- and I will be supporting the member for Welland-Thorold's bill this morning. However, I think some adjustments should be made. Possibly 55, as my colleague from Simcoe East mentioned, is maybe a more acceptable age than 60.

However, as we go back and look at the elections that have occurred in 1985, 1987 and 1990, approximately 50% of the members here did not return, either by voluntary retirement or constituent-forced retirement.

It's amazing. The member for Eglinton mentioned some of the misleading information that was provided in the newspapers, that you're here five years and you get a $60,000-a-year pension. That is certainly far from the truth. It is very misleading, and perception becomes reality. It's very easy picking to go after elected politicians; we live in fish-bowls.

Eight days a week sometimes isn't enough in your calendar or mine, and we fought like the dickens to get re-elected. That's fine. We accept what goes with that. I don't think anyone is here because of the salary. We're here for a cause. Frustrating as it may be from time to time, we still work towards a cause: to better the conditions of the people we attempt to represent. It's not always easy, either in opposition or even on the back benches on the government side. Frustration does set in from time to time; as long as rigor mortis doesn't set in.

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): That's the Senate.

Mr Villeneuve: That's the Senate.

However, in closing -- and I have very few seconds left -- I will be supporting the member's bill today. We look for some reform because perception is reality, and the public perception out there through misleading media information is making us look like we are using the system.

Mr Mark Morrow (Wentworth East): I want to thank the member for Welland-Thorold for bringing this Bill 53 forward. I will be supporting it later today. I also want to thank the member for Windsor-Walkerville for bringing his bill forward last week.

I think this starts talk about legislative reform as far as remuneration and as far as expenses, per diems etc that we get. I know other members around the House have alluded to that this morning.

Last Wednesday afternoon, the member for Welland-Thorold and I were lucky enough to be on 900 CHML, the Roy Green show, where we talked about legislative reform as far as remuneration and expenses go. What most people told us is that they think an MPP makes a good salary, that it's not a bad salary, but they would like to see the reforms come in where, say, things are not hidden in expenses, things are not hidden in per diems, that we maybe roll it all into one so it's very upfront, so that people around the province understand what we're getting.

That's just one issue, and I think these pension reform bills are starting to address that issue. A lot of people think that after five years, as the honourable member for Eglinton pointed out, we're pensioned off at $60,000 or we get 75% of what we've made for the past five years.

It's an issue that touches home to me because I was elected September 6, 1990. I was 30 years old. If I'm lucky enough to last until I'm 45, if I'm privileged enough that the people in Wentworth East allow me to last until I'm 45, I'll be here for 15 years and get a pension of roughly $30,000. It just seems a little ludicrous and crazy; people in the private sector don't get that. They have to wait till they're 60 or 65 and properly pensioned off.

It's something we should be a little realistic about. I know I talked to seniors in my riding: Jake Isbister; I've talked to Ken Gamble, Bill Gamble. I've talked to councillors in Stoney Creek: Maria Pearson. They don't seem to understand the issue. They don't seem to understand that they have to work for 35, 40, 50 years and their pensions aren't as good as ours. That's a real shame. They don't get it; we don't get it.

Earlier this week, I was talking about legislative reform as far as remunerations and expenses go, and I had decided that I would give up my apartment. It was kind of sad that I got openly and publicly criticized by a member of the House for doing that. That's just a sad issue and I'm not going to say much more on that. I was really taken aback that this happened. That's something we have to address; that's something we have to be very serious about.

We're asking the public service to be serious about cutbacks, about $2 billion worth, and we're asking the people of the province of Ontario to be serious; we've increased taxes. I think it's about time that we got serious and did exactly the same thing, to show them that we're in the lead and that we're starting.

I know I have roughly two and a half minutes left and I know the honourable member for Welland-Thorold gave the member for Victoria-Haliburton some time. I would like to give some of my time that I have left back to the honourable member for Welland-Thorold.

The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.

Mr Kormos: Obviously, I'm in a position where I wrap this up with the two minutes that are permitted me.

A little bit of talk about double-dipping: Quite rightly, the remarkable thing about the formula in Bill 53 is that it effectively deals with double-dipping without having to worry about

definitions and what constitutes a second salary or a primary salary because of the fact that it requires that a person be 60 years old before she or he be eligible for a pension.

One of the problems with laying out a formula and defining what double-dipping means is that there are always going to be exceptions, and then there is going to be litigation and arguments about, "Am I in a public service job or am I not in a public service job?" I don't care whether you're in a public sector or a private sector job. You still shouldn't get your MPP pension until you're 60 years old. There's nothing miraculous about that. There's nothing mysterious about that.

As a matter of fact, one of the problems around here is that this Legislative Assembly is cloaked with this mystery. We speak some of our own language, and so much that takes place here is done, in terms of the viewpoint of the public, so secretively and mysteriously and sometimes magically. Let's open the doors to this joint. Let's lay the cards on the table. Let's open the books. Let's make sure that people in this province who pay for this government, who pay for the good things in this province, understand where the money comes from and how that money's being spent.

Some talk about the event of members falling ill, becoming ill or injured to the point where they can no longer work. Let's not confuse a pension plan with a long-term disability plan. Let's talk about an LTD. I'll tell you this: I'm going to be proposing to you that this bill, if it succeeds, if it's passed, be referred to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly. We've got to get the ball rolling: no more studies, no more deferrals, no more shelving things in dusty, dark back rooms. Let's get the ball rolling in a public, open, standing committee so the discussion can begin in a three-party manner.

The Deputy Speaker: We still have two minutes.

Mr Kormos: Thank you. I sat down so you could tell me I had two minutes, Speaker. Far be it for me to offend the rules or not abide by protocol. I'm extremely conscious of the need for that.

Look, this bill, like the latter bill of the member for Windsor-Walkerville, is a starting point. I appreciate the comments about the need for perhaps having an independent body assess these things and deal with them in an omnibus fashion: pays, salaries, per diems, perks. Perhaps that's the point this should happen at in terms of real recommendations, but let's let the Legislative Assembly committee deal with that.

Let's let the Legislative Assembly committee hear presentations about the process that might be followed, a public process of presentation and a public process of debate within the Legislative Assembly committee, because -- the member talked about the need -- regardless of what an independent body decides or recommends, ultimately members of this assembly have to make a political decision. That may mean rejecting a set of recommendations from an independent body that is overly generous with taxpayers' dollars. The bottom line is that there has to be a political decision made.

So I say this: I appeal to members of the assembly to support this bill. I also say this: Don't let this bill become mere window dressing. Let's get the process going. Let's refer this to the Legislative Assembly committee so that there can be an honest and legitimate, bona fide, above-the-board addressing of the issues by all the members of this assembly and by members of the public. That's where it can take place, not in committee of the whole and not deferred over to some dark, dusty shelf in a back room or in the basement of this joint.

The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for private members' public business has expired.

TAXATION OF FARM LAND

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will deal first with ballot item number 21, standing in the name of Monsieur Villeneuve. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mr Villeneuve has moved private member's notice of motion number 19.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

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

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1202 to 1207.

The Deputy Speaker: Will the members please take their seats.

Mr Villeneuve has moved private member's resolution number 19. All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing until your name is called.

Ayes

Arnott, Beer, Callahan, Cunningham, Drainville, Eddy, Grandmaître, Johnson (Don Mills), Jordan, Kormos, Kwinter, Marland, McLean, Murphy, Poole, Villeneuve.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please rise and remain standing until their names are called.

Nays

Cooper, Duignan, Frankford, Haeck, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hope, Huget, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Malkowski, Marchese, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), North, O'Connor, Rizzo, Sutherland, Waters, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Wilson (Frontenac-Addington).

The Deputy Speaker: The ayes are 16; the nays are 25. I declare the motion lost.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY RETIREMENT ALLOWANCES AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES ALLOCATIONS DE RETRAITE DES DÉPUTÉS À L'ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now deal with ballot item number 22 standing in the name of Mr Kormos. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mr Kormos has moved second reading of Bill 53,

An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Retirement Allowances Act.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

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

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1210 to 1215.

The Deputy Speaker: Will the members please take their seats.

Mr Kormos has moved second reading of Bill 53. All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing until their names are called.

Ayes

Arnott, Beer, Callahan, Cunningham, Curling, Drainville, Duignan, Eddy, Grandmaître, Harnick, Harrington, Huget, Johnson (Don Mills), Jordan, Kormos, Kwinter, Malkowski, Marchese, McLean, Morrow, Murphy, North, O'Connor, Poole, Rizzo, Villeneuve, White, Wiseman.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please rise and remain standing until their names are called. Nays

Cooper, Frankford, Hansen, Haslam, Hope, Johnson (Prince-Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Murdock (Sudbury), Sutherland, Waters, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands).

The Deputy Speaker: The ayes are 28 and the nays are 15. I declare the motion carried. Pursuant to standing order 96(k), the bill is referred to the committee of the whole.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Mr Speaker, I ask that the bill be referred to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly so that it can be effectively worked with.

The Deputy Speaker: Shall the bill be referred to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly?

All those in favour of this question will please rise and remain standing.

All those opposed to this question will please rise and remain standing.

A majority of the House not being in agreement with the request of the member, this bill is referred to the committee of the whole House.

All matters relating to private members' public business having been completed, I do now leave the chair. The House will resume at 1:30.

The House recessed at 1219.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TORONTO MOLSON INDY

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): On July 16, 17 and 18, the Toronto Molson Indy enters its eighth year as one of Canada's major sporting events. The Toronto Molson Indy has become Toronto's largest annual sporting event and last year attracted 155,000 people. Tourists from all parts of Canada and the United States converge on Toronto to view the races and participate in many of the other cultural and entertainment activities available in the Toronto area.

We are fortunate to have two Ontario drivers in the race. Both Scott Goodyear of Scarborough and West Hill's Paul Tracy have become stars in their own right, and Paul Tracy comes to the Toronto race after having won last week's race in Cleveland, beating such notable drivers as Emerson Fittipaldi and Britain's Nigel Mansell.

In conjunction with the race, the Molson Indy Festival stages events during a week-long celebration which raises money for children's charities. Since 1986, Molson Indy Festival events have raised in excess of $700,000 for various charities including the Herbie Fund, Easter Seals, Marina Lodge Rehabilitation Centre and the Variety Club.

Indy car racing is also a testing ground which has led to some of the most significant developments and improvements in the automotive industry over the years.

I'm sure we all join in wishing the organizers a very successful and safe weekend.

GOVERNMENT'S AGENDA

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): The people of Ontario are disillusioned with Ontario's NDP government. It has lost control of its agenda and is drifting aimlessly through the summer of 1993.

The government claims it extended the sitting of the Legislature because of a pressing need to proceed with its legislative agenda. I would respectfully submit that if the NDP government was really serious about getting some work done, they should have been back here on March 22, rather than delaying proceedings and hiding out for three weeks until April 13.

I suspect retailers have seen a marked increase in the number of telephone answering machines sold for the constituency offices of NDP members so those members will not have to face the music in their ridings.

The NDP members are unable to justify their antibusiness, job-killing May 19 budget and its $2-billion tax grab. The NDP members cannot defend their anti-labour social contract legislation that is a blatant attack on Ontario's education, health care, municipal and public sectors. The NDP members are unable to explain the logic of their health expenditure control act that will have a profound negative impact on the ability to provide and receive the high-quality medical services people so demand.

The people of Ontario deserve nothing less than the best possible government comprised of honest and honourable men and women. Unfortunately the government's NDP members use telephone answering machines at their constituency offices and hide out here at Queen's Park to avoid facing the constituents who elected them in good faith. What a sad state of affairs.

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): As the July 30 deadline for the first wave of proposals under our government's Jobs Ontario Homes approaches, I'd like to take this opportunity to once again add my voice to the growing number of people who are convinced that non-profit housing needs to be a significant part of provincial housing policy.

Currently only 15% of our government's total annual housing expenditure is spent on non-profit housing, compared with 56% for shelter allowances and rent supplements. Yet unlike non-profit housing, shelter allowances are short-term solutions that do not create any new affordable housing. Rental subsidies function to keep private market rents too high and require increasing levels of funding as rents keep increasing. As mortgages are paid off over time, non-profit housing requires significantly decreasing levels of funding while maintaining permanent affordable housing.

One of the many groups applying for Jobs Ontario Homes is Alice Willow Co-operative Homes Inc. I wholeheartedly support their attempts to address the shortage of decent, affordable rental housing in my riding and in Acton in particular. As people in my riding learn more about what non-profit and cooperative housing means, more people are actively supporting these projects. Alice Willow Co-op, like many of the public and private non-profit corporations, will bring to its community much-needed, clean and attractive stable housing which is managed and democratically owned by the people who live there.

I know their efforts will provide a very positive contribution to our community and I salute them for that.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mr Charles Beer (York North): Yesterday, the leader of the official opposition, Lyn McLeod, my colleague the member for York Centre, Greg Sorbara, and I met with members of York region council in Newmarket. We heard a story of frustration, frustration at how difficult it is to work with this government on the issue of the social contract.

The mayor of Newmarket, Ray Twinney, told us that he, together with his council and the town's employees, is convinced that they can come to a local agreement that will both save taxpayers' money and save jobs. They can do this by using common sense and by building on the positive relationships that exist in the town between council and Newmarket staff. Yet the appalling fact is that when Newmarket town officials asked government representatives if their local agreement would then allow the town to receive the full 20% reduction in their target, they were told no.

Local agreements can be made. Why won't the government offer local municipalities the same incentive they will provide to the whole sector?

The Liberal Party has argued consistently that the only way to bring about the goals and objectives of the government's proposed restraint program is to allow local communities to make local agreements.

I say to the Minister of Finance, now Ontario's paymaster, listen to what local municipalities, local school boards, local agencies of all stripes are saying: "Let us negotiate with our employees and we will meet the $2-billion target and we will get fair and equitable agreements." Minister, when Newmarket's plan is sent to Queen's Park, say yes.

ORANGEVILLE MEDIEVAL FESTIVAL

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): My lords and my ladies, pray pay heed: I rise to inform the House that this weekend the town of Orangeville hosts the annual Orangeville Medieval Festival. The medieval festival is the brainchild of a very special resident and artist, Lorina Stephens. Mrs Stephens has taken the medieval festival from idea to fruition, holding the first medieval festival last year, attracting over 20,000 visitors to Orangeville.

This weekend's events include a live chess match played out by children from school areas, a medieval feast on Saturday night featuring foods from the era, archery competitions and a live, full-contact jousting contest played out on horses.

Come visit the Norse encampment, an authentic recreation of the Norse landing on North American soil in the year 1000 AD.

The local museum will feature an exhibit of medieval coins and offer local walking tours of historic homes.

Orangeville will play host to the weekend events by opening up homes and businesses to people dressed in period costumes and lots of, "Good day, my lords and ladies."

Visit Orangeville this weekend and come spend a day 500 years ago.

JACQUELINE TUINSTRA

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I rise today to pay tribute to a 14-year-old environmentalist from my riding, Jacqueline Tuinstra of Vineland.

This bright young teen recently participated in the United Nations Global Youth Forum in Colorado. Jacqueline was one of the 2,000 delegates from more than 40 nations. She was chosen from more than 300 applicants to be one of Canada's 20 delegates. Jacqueline was the only representative from the Niagara Peninsula among Canada's delegates, who range in age from 12 to 22 years.

While at the forum, she exchanged environmental concerns with young people from all over the world and she helped draft an environmental declaration to be presented at the United Nations General Assembly.

Most importantly, Jacqueline learned that people from different nations and cultures can work together to solve environmental problems.

Since returning home, she has written an essay about her experience and has spoken at elementary schools and at a local school board meeting.

I'd like to congratulate Jacqueline for the dedication she has shown to saving our environment from the excesses of the industrial world. We can only hope other young people follow her example.

INCOME TAX

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): As predicted, I think the angry calls are now beginning to come to our offices as people in the province realize their provincial income tax went up July 1 by 11%. The average family in this province now is paying $80 more a month in provincial taxes. If we don't think that's going to have a strong negative impact on the economy, we're very much mistaken. Eighty dollars a month out of the average working family in this province is going to have a real negative impact on the economy.

Just when I think we began to see the economy getting on its knees again, just when we saw a little bit of a faint heartbeat in the economy, there is no doubt this biggest tax increase in the history of the province is going to be like a cold shower on our economy. And just when the government acknowledged that the real unemployment rate in this province is 14%, just when we see almost three quarters of a million people out of work in this province, this is just the moment the government decides to take taxes up on the average family by $80 a month.

I hope we're wrong, but I think we are going to see this cold shower stop our economic recovery right in its tracks.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Last night, over 200 people attended a meeting in Mississauga organized by concerned families of the Tyndall Nursing Home to discuss Bill 101, which has made several changes to Ontario's system of long-term care.

Of primary concern is the new fee structure for accommodation in long-term care facilities. On July 1, Bill 101 added a user fee, or copayment, which