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

November 26, 1982

32nd Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

TRADE MISSIONS

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

ORAL QUESTIONS

SALE OF RENTAL UNITS

HYDRO CONTRACTS

GAS PRICE DIFFERENTIAL

CANADIAN PIZZA CRUST LTD.

DEATH OF MARILYN GARTON WHELAN

WINDSOR PACKING

UNEMPLOYMENT

SHELTER ALLOWANCES

DISPOSAL OF NUCLEAR WASTES

CLOSURE OF AUDIO LIBRARY

PETITION

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT BILL

MOTION

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT

VITAL STATISTICS AMENDMENT ACT

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FOOD

The House met at 10 a.m.

Mr. Nixon: The cabinet started Grey Cup weekend a little early with a big party last night.

Mr. McClellan: Here comes Mr. Dress-Up.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if a ruling is required on whether the Premier (Mr. Davis) is attired in what could be called parliamentary dress.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Today, yes.

Mr. Cunningham: That's the new Argos drawback.

Mr. Speaker: As the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney) may know, this matter has come up on previous occasions and we do not have any restrictions or requirements or a dress code.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, I have a message from the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor signed by his own hand.

Mr. Speaker: John B. Aird, the Lieutenant Governor, transmits supplementary estimates of certain additional sums required for the services of the province for the year ending March 31, 1983, and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly, Toronto. November 26, 1982.

TRADE MISSIONS

Mr. McKessock: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: It has been brought to my attention by the former Minister of Agriculture and Food, the member for Lambton (Mr. Henderson), that in a speech I made in the House last Thursday I incorrectly said five government members attended a trade mission to Korea and Japan. I checked Hansard and that is what is recorded. What I should have said was five government people, including the minister, and 10 people from the private sector attended the mission to Korea and Japan. I am sorry for any misrepresentation. This has been a word change, but the expense to the taxpayer has been unchanged.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr. McKessock: I have a second point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. It pertains to a news release put out by the present Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell) which refers to the Ontario farm adjustment assistance plan.

I quote from the fifth paragraph: "Since this program was announced, more than 3,000 farmers have received financial assistance through the program's three options. The total value of assistance under each option to date is: $267,768 under the interest deferral option A; $570,894,488 under the interest rebate option B.

The total amount of dollars committed to this program was only $60 million. Therefore, there is no way $570 million could be given out in total assistance. I feel the minister will want to make a correction because it gives a false statement to the thousands of readers across Ontario who are reading this announcement.

Mr. Speaker: The minister will undoubtedly take note of that.

[Later]

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I understand that at the beginning of proceedings this morning, the member for Grey (Mr. McKessock) raised a matter on a point of privilege, which I appreciate. It has to do with a press release issued from our ministry in conjunction with a speech I made to the annual meeting of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture on Tuesday evening.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Great speech.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: It was a great speech but, unfortunately, the press release could have been a little clearer.

Mr. Riddell: Did you get a standing ovation for that?

Hon. Mr. Davis: He got a standing ovation.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: This matter was drawn to my attention the next day by the member for Chatham-Kent (Mr. Watson) and, as a result, a correction notice is in or should be in the members' boxes this morning and distributed to the press. I will send a copy to the member for Grey. I apologize for any inconvenience it has caused him.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SALE OF RENTAL UNITS

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. It concerns the flip-over of the Cadillac Fairview apartment units in the city of Toronto. Press reports this morning continue to raise a series of questions concerning this most mysterious of transactions.

We have learned today that despite the sale, Cadillac Fairview continues to manage these buildings. Perhaps more interesting, and even more mysterious, it is now reported that the Saudi Arabian interest in this deal is merely a minority and not a majority interest, and that the numbered companies owning the buildings are owned and controlled by Canadian investors.

Can the minister confirm or deny that the second part of that question is the case? Can he confirm or deny it is Canadians and not Saudi Arabians who control the majority interest in those numbered companies?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, in one of the statements I made, I think I outlined that the intention indicated to me was that Cadillac Fairview management, as it pertains to its residential properties, would be sold to someone who would manage the properties with the same staff which had managed them in the past. As of the present time, I understand Cadillac Fairview continues to manage them. I have not inquired into the details of when that transfer will take place, but I will be pleased to do so if the member thinks it is important for us to know that information.

With respect to whether or not the reported investors from Saudi Arabia constitute a majority or a minority of the beneficial owners, as I have said in committee and in the House, the only information I have is the information given to me that the investors were Saudi Arabian. To date, I have no information to claim otherwise The Touche Ross firm is at present involved in a review of all the trust companies and Greymac Mortgage, and we may get some further information from that. When I have such information, I will be pleased to reveal it at the appropriate time.

Mr. Conway: Unfortunately, because of the din I did not quite pick up the minister's response to the second part of the question. Let me just say, though, we certainly want the minister to know we consider it a matter of importance to ascertain the point at which the Cadillac Fairview Residential Management involvement ceases because the people living in the 11,000 apartment units that are affected are very much concerned to know who will be setting their rents. The minister will know that we want very much to have that information.

10:10 a.m.

We are aware that the minister, in his statement of 10 days ago, triggered the Morrison inquiry under

section 152 of the Loan and Trust Corporations Act. We are aware that is under way. Since his deputy minister, I believe, indicated earlier in these discussions that there was an involvement, and since there was a discussion with Kilderkin about the numbered companies and the flip-over, I would like to ascertain this morning whether or not the minister can indicate if he now believes that Mr. Mastin, Leonard Rosenberg and Mr. Player have also dissembled and have not told him the truth about these Saudi Arabian interests? Is that what we are led to conclude this morning?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I do not see that I can add any further information which will resolve the issue for the member. Again, I can only repeat the information given to me. We think it is important for us to try to ascertain as a fact -- that is not saying that the people who gave me the information did not provide me with the facts, but what the member is talking about is other objective evidence as to ownership. We are pursuing a variety of approaches to see if that information can be obtained because we think it is important for us to know that.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I have learned the dangers of repeating information given to me. I am surprised the minister has not learned the same thing. I would like to ask him --

Hon. Mr. Gregory: He has not made any mistakes.

Mr. Rae: He has not made any mistakes, the Premier (Mr. Davis) says? We will find out.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I didn't say that.

An hon. member: The whip said that.

Mr. Rae: I am sorry.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary please.

Mr. Rae: I apologize. I appear to have attributed remarks to the Premier which he did not make. I was so dazzled --

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is not the first time, nor will it be the last time you do that.

Mr. Rae: I could say the same thing to him. I was so dazzled by the Premier's dress that I was not able to see the whip for the aura around the Premier.

I would like to ask the minister about the audit which has been ordered under

section 152 of the Loan and Trust Corporations Act which, as the minister well knows, is restricted to asking questions of corporations that are covered by that act; in other words, corporations that are either loan companies or trust corporations.

Can the minister tell us whether either Cadillac Fairview or Kilderkin is a loan or trust corporation for the purposes of

section 152? If they are not, how can he possibly find out who are the owners today? How can he possibly find out the nature of the transaction? And how can he find out if he has been misled, not once, not twice but, it would appear, three times?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, the first question is whether or not the inquiry, under

part II of the Public Inquiries Act, which is envisaged under

section 152 of the Loan and Trust Corporations Act, is a restricted inquiry. Certainly, since the

section comes under the Loan and Trust Corporations Act, the first inquiries by the special examiner will be within that framework.

As I believe I have said to the member here and certainly in committee, it is my view and belief, as it is my staff's, that the nature of the transactions, in other words, the ascertaining as to whether or not they were arm's-length transactions -- I am not saying they are or are not, and that is why the process is under way -- should lead inevitably to some understanding of all the transactions that took place.

As I have said very clearly before, once the investigation of our own enforcement branch is completed, and if there is information we feel is still necessary, I am certainly keeping my options open. The member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) can giggle and all that stuff, but I do not want to be like Tom Thumb. There is a poem that should be written:

"There was a young man from York South,

"Who kept putting his foot in his mouth."

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I am not prepared to march into this House with brown envelopes and a grand style and reveal secret information. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, that is not relevant to the question.

Mr. Conway: It is obvious from the minister's answers that there remains in his own mind and in the mind of the department a substantial amount of uncertainty about who owns what at this particular time. In view of these latest press reports, which indicate that it may very well be the case, contrary to what we believed a short time ago, that Canadians and not Saudis own the majority of the interest in those numbered companies, does the minister not believe that, given the narrowness of the

section 152 inquiry, given that it is clearly not going to be able to get to the bottom of all of this, the time has now come for the minister to order a full public inquiry under the Public Inquiries Act?

Second, would the minister not agree that it is truly an unhappy spectacle, not only for the province as a whole but for all those tenants most directly and especially involved in this mysterious series of transactions, that we have a public watchdog, a public regulator -- in the case of the government of Ontario, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations -- who, as a watchdog, we see standing idly by while the cats of Kilderkin dance happily and with reckless abandon across his happy face?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: To paraphrase, "Oh, what a rogue and peasant slave is he. Is it not monstrous that this player" -- no, pardon me, Mr. Speaker, that was from another era, but it does seem to have some application to the particular member's grandiosity as he speaks on these issues.

Seriously, whether he is asking the question as a member of this House or as a player in that great piece that Shakespeare wrote, I may say that I have as much interest as he does, and I suspect more than he does in some areas, in finding out the facts about this case. I have indicated very clearly the terms of reference of the Morrison inquiry, and I have indicated very clearly that the government's options remain open once information is obtained following that report.

HYDRO CONTRACTS

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question of the first minister. The first minister will recall that over five years and four months ago he stood in his place in this House and said he would make available the report of one Campbell Grant into certain matters arising from certain disclosures from the diary of Mr. Harold McNamara during the famous dredging trial. The first minister made a promise to this House over five years and four months ago, on July 8, 1977, that he would make the report of Campbell Grant available as soon as he could, having regard to the court cases being heard at that time.

As the Premier will know, many of us, certainly this member, would want to see that the courts proceed, as he drew our attention to in this case, but he will also know that not only has Mr. McNamara exhausted all his appeals but a number of the people involved have served their time and have returned to the community.

My question to the first minister, a man who has repeatedly and regularly invited the province to take note of how he keeps his promise, is, can he indicate how and when he intends to keep his promise to this House made on July 8, 1977, that he would make available to the House the report of Campbell Grant on those matters the honourable gentleman was discharged to inquire into?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I believe the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) asked this question a few weeks ago. I think I indicated then that I would consult with the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry). I shall again. I am only going by memory that there are one or two who are still involved in the appeal process. I will confirm that for the member, and either the Attorney General or I will have some observations early next week.

10:20 a.m.

Mr. Conway: Can the Premier indicate from his knowledge of the report whether or not there are matters in the report that would have at this late date a bearing on those appeals, given the very great amount of time that has passed? Can he indicate whether or not there is a substantive reason for holding back the release of this report -- he being a Queen's Counsel and some of the rest of us being somewhat less?

Will he then indicate more firmly exactly when the Attorney General or the first minister will be making this commitment? Some of us have waited a long time. This matter has been raised a total of 11 or 12 times since the Premier made his commitment to us five years and four months ago.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would remind the member of the points of view expressed by his colleague from Ottawa East (Mr. Roy). I will not presume to offer any legal opinions. I learned that many years ago, first, because I do not think I should and, second, because I do not feel competent to offer legal opinions of that nature. I can only say to the honourable member, I shall consult with the senior law officer of the crown, the Attorney General, and get his advice.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, as the Premier indicated, I share the same interest as the member for Renfrew North in this matter. The latest information I have from the Ministry of the Attorney General is that three of the companies which were convicted got leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada on a relatively narrow legal point. However, if they were successful, new trials would be ordered.

I also understand that three individuals and one company are seeking new trials in the Court of Appeal. The latest that I am aware of in these matters is that they are in the assignment court and I do not know what the results of those matters are. That information is from earlier this year.

I would appreciate it if the Premier or the Attorney General would give us the very specific and precise details of any actions or matters which are still before the courts. That is my question. Could I ask the Premier, or the Attorney General, to be certain that we get a precise statement on the matter early next week?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the member and I may always disagree as to his definition of what is precise or not totally precise, but I know what he is asking. I shall endeavour to accommodate him.

Mr. Nixon: The chief law officer has just joined us.

Mr. Conway: If I might redirect, with the pleasure of the first minister, who involved the chief law officer in one of his earlier answers --

Mr. Nixon: Not knowing he would be coming in this morning.

Mr. Conway: -- not knowing that the chief law officer would be with us this morning, might I ask the Attorney General if he can help us in understanding why these consultations between himself and his boss have been so endless?

We have been told before on at least three occasions that there would be consultations, after which there would be a report. We waited and we heard little or nothing. I am wondering whether or not the Attorney General can help those of us who want to know something about why it is the Campbell Grant inquiry report has not or cannot be made available to this House, since it was in July 1977 that the Premier "hisself" promised it to the House.

Can the Attorney General shed some light on specifically why there has been such a delay, in view of the fact that many of the principals not only have had their court cases, but in fact have served their time and have returned to the community? Can he indicate what the particular problem is, and try to dispel a feeling that is shared by some that there is something of a stonewall, something of a cover-up, on what might very well be an unduly sensitise and perhaps very embarrassing situation for the government of which he is so prominent a part?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the Premier of this province continues to consult with the Attorney General in relation to matters affecting the administration of justice. Obviously I would be very distressed if he ceased that process.

With respect to this matter, my understanding at the moment is that it is still pending before the Supreme Court of Canada. Quite frankly, I have not had a recent report on the matter. I will find out the status of these matters.

GAS PRICE DIFFERENTIAL

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I am sure the minister is aware of a report published in newspapers that the average price spread between leaded and unleaded gasoline is 2.4 cents a litre when, according to a consultant's report for Environment Canada, the differential in the cost of production is only 0.4 cents a litre.

Given the minister's responsibility for prices and for consumer protection in Ontario, I want to ask him whether he is investigating these spreads and whether he will consider a price freeze as a way of getting back literally millions of dollars that consumers have overpaid if these reports are correct.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, along with all members of this House and the public, I read that

article with great interest. We did meet with staff to discuss what options we might have. It was pointed out to me, as the

article clearly indicated, that this is an area of federal responsibility.

At present there is an inquiry into the petroleum industry, and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Relations in Ottawa does have certain responsibilities with respect to fair pricing under a number of pieces of legislation. Accordingly, I have written to him, pointing this out to him and asking whether he would be prepared to have this price increase looked at under his legislation.

I think the honourable member would agree that it would be unfortunate if there were duplicative efforts going on. But that is the state of things at present.

Mr. Rae: I simply do not understand the minister's reluctance. His responsibility for prices and contracts within the jurisdiction of the province is very clear, according to opinions on the Constitution issued by no less a source than the Attorney General of this province (Mr. McMurtry) himself.

Given that, I want to ask the minister whether he is aware that a survey of Sunoco stations has shown that the spreads are just as high at Sunoco stations as they are elsewhere. How does he feel about the fact that stations in which the government has a direct interest are engaged in precisely the same questionable practices as other gas companies?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Again, I think the member is trying to insinuate a lack of interest in the problem. I believe he will agree that if the leaked report is an accurate report, it is a report on a national issue. I would suspect that he would understand, having come from that great parliamentary centre in Ottawa, that if national issues are going to be investigated, it would be unfortunate if provinces carried out duplicative efforts at the same time that was going on.

Let the member have no doubt that if there is any indication given to me that they are not interested in this problem, then we will have to look seriously at measures we might take.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, surely the minister must be aware that his seatmate, the member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Drea), the former Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, was one of the first to indicate that there was a ripoff associated with this unleaded gasoline business. The former minister is nodding.

The present minister says that if Ottawa does not do something about this, he may have to do something. Can he explain why his ministry has been in possession of these facts for years, since the member for Scarborough Centre had the responsibility, and it has never done anything about it, even though he expressed his concern in this House that long ago?

Does the minister really feel he has to wait for the federal government to take some action, particularly when he and his ministry had been aware of the problem long before it became a subject of interest to the leader of the New Democratic Party?

Hon. Mr. Davis: That's right.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Is that right, Premier? It is right. I know other members may feel at times that the present minister is not outspoken enough when he indicates his views on things. I am one of those who think he speaks quite freely on issues that confront him. The action the former minister indicates he took was to place the responsibility where it rests, with the federal government. That is what he did.

10:30 a.m.

I have made my position clear. The member can play all the little games he wishes, but he knows this is a national issue affecting all provinces. If the federal government refuses to accept its obligations and responsibilities, then clearly the provinces have to do something.

Mr. Rae: The one thing I learned in my very brief time in Ottawa is that we cannot expect any action at all from the Liberals. If the minister paid any attention to the statements that were made in the federal House by Mr. Ouellet, he would know perfectly well that what Mr. Ouellet said --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid) is quite through, I will recognize the member for York South.

Mr. Rae: I can well understand the sensitivity of the Liberal Party on this question. The fact remains that Mr. Ouellet has stated quite clearly that in his view it is a matter of provincial jurisdiction. Surely the minister would agree that it is time the buck-passing stopped and that the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations took some responsibility for prices that are being imposed on gas that is being sold in Ontario.

Does the minister's reluctance to carry out his own investigation have anything to do with the fact that Ontario, thanks to the ad valorem tax, has a direct stake in this kind of price differential and in these kinds of rates being charged for unleaded versus leaded gas?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: The great tragedy and a point of interest in this whole thing is to see friends squabbling like this. I think that is important. They are on the same side. They have little disagreements, they may have reform elements that trouble each other, right-wing elements, but they are basically friends. It is a lovers' quarrel, literally.

Mr. Speaker: Now to the question.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I really have nothing more to add to this. I hope the member will appreciate that with the federal government having a commission of inquiry into the petroleum industry, to suggest they have no interest in the issue of petroleum prices is to deny that he has been there for several years and should understand that.

Mr. Rae: The minister's faith in Liberalism is truly touching.

CANADIAN PIZZA CRUST LTD.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. It concerns Canadian Pizza Crust Ltd. and the very difficult circumstance that is being faced by 22 East Indian women who work the evening shift at this company. On going into work on October 7 and asking for a 30-cent raise which had been promised to them and which had been given to workers on the day shift, they found themselves locked out and then received notices that they had quit their employment.

I am sure the minister is aware of this case, but I will ask, first of all, is he aware of it? Will he investigate this disgraceful situation? Can he undertake to the House that he will report back to us by Tuesday on all the steps his ministry is taking with regard to these employees?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I believe there were three questions there. Am I aware of it? Yes. Will I investigate the matter? The matter has already been investigated. Will I report back to the House by Tuesday? I do not want to make an absolute, firm commitment, but I am relatively sure that I will be in a position to report back by Tuesday. I believe that was when the member said.

Mr. Rae: Would the minister not agree that if the Employment Standards Act contained a simple and fundamental provision that every employee in Ontario should be protected by a clause in his or her contract requiring an employer to have cause before being able to dismiss the person, these women would be working today? Would he not agree they would have their jobs back and would not be facing the kinds of delays and very real economic difficulties which have resulted from the action of this employer?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, while I acknowledge that the actions appear to be completely unreasonable, I am certainly not going to make any commitment to change the act at this time.

Mr. Rae: In the face of this example and many other examples where workers who are not unionized have literally no protection in terms of getting their jobs back, I must say that I find the minister's attitude, as a minister who is supposed to responsible for protecting the rights of working people, rather surprising, to say the least.

The minister will be aware that on October 8, the women went to the Ontario Labour Relations Board and were told that because they were non-unionized they could not get help. They were not directed by the labour relations board to employment standards. It was only after other individuals directed them to the Ontario Human Rights Commission and elsewhere that they were finally able to attempt to get some help.

Would the minister not agree that this delay process has to stop? Finally, would he not reconsider his answer to the second question? Does he not agree that it is more important for these women to be able to get their jobs back than anything else?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: In response to the last question asked by the honourable member, our ministry is studying at great length, at the present time, the matter of unjust dismissal. So, when I said that I was not prepared to make any changes in the act, I did not mean that we were not prepared to look at the circumstances. In fact, we are doing just that.

It is unfortunate if, indeed, these people were turned away from the Ontario Labour Relations Board without an indication of where they might go for assistance. I will be happy to look into that because that is certainly contrary to their normal mode of operations.

DEATH OF MARILYN GARTON WHELAN

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I return with a question to the Attorney General concerning the death of Marilyn Garton Whelan.

in September 1978 it was the view of David Watt, a senior crown attorney, that the case should proceed, and in January 1979 it was the view of Bruce Affleck, a former crown attorney, that: "The case should be prosecuted. There were errors in law on the part of the judge, insurmountable evidence of guilt and, as the case stood, there was a flagrant miscarriage of justice."

In view of these comments, would the minister explain why, when he wrote to Mr. and Mrs. Garton in October last year, he said, "To prefer an indictment, particularly after a lengthy delay, will be regarded by most of the public as an abuse of the justice process," when the delay in this case was entirely unnecessary, indeed, the transcripts took 13 months to complete, and the delay, in any event, was none of the Gartons' doing?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, of course, I appreciate the delay was none of the Gartons' doing. But, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the Attorney General making a decision to prefer an indictment directly, notwithstanding the discharge of the accused after a lengthy preliminary hearing, obviously the status of the Gartons is not in issue.

I expressed my concern to the Gartons in relation to the delay as far as the preparation of the transcript was concerned. The delay was caused by a number of events, some of which were unavoidable, and some in my view were incredible and, certainly at the very least, most unfortunate, but it was a matter that was reviewed very carefully by all the senior law officers in the criminal branch of the ministry.

10:40 a.m.

While there may not have been total unanimity as to the proper course of action, which is hardly unusual when lawyers are discussing a complex legal issue, I can assure the member for Kitchener that the overwhelming view and advice to me was not to prefer an indictment.

If that had not coincided with my own view of the matter, and I take responsibility for that, I would have had a responsibility to proceed. I cannot recall at this point which law officers expressed which opinion, and this is something else which may or may not be pursued in estimates, but I can assure the member for Kitchener it was the majority, if not overwhelming view of the law officers who were advising me that it would not be in the public interest to proceed with a preferred indictment.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. John Takach, director of crown attorneys, has said and I quote, "It is my respectful opinion that His Honour Judge Clendinning did in fact err in discharging the accused at the preliminary." Will the Attorney General at least undertake to make his ministry facilities available to Mr. and Mrs. Garton so they can locate Dr. Whelan and serve him with a notice of motion in the Supreme Court to have a justice of the Supreme Court consider the preferral of an indictment against Dr. Whelan which, while it is a rare occurrence, is at least a possibility under the Criminal Code?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: There are really two parts to that supplementary question. I think the member for Kitchener appreciates that, while we often do not agree with the decision of a provincial court judge in discharging an accused at a preliminary hearing, that in itself does not necessarily justify the preferral of an indictment.

It was certainly our view that Judge Clendinning should have required the accused to stand trial, but one has to look at all the circumstances before one circumvents the preliminary hearing process.

With respect to what would be involved in assisting the Gartons in serving Dr. Whelan with notice of motion, as the member has stated, according to his best information Dr. Whelan is residing in Saudi Arabia. I certainly will give them any advice. I think they are represented by counsel. If we have any way of ascertaining his whereabouts, we would be happy to assist in that regard.

At this time, I am not sure what the appropriate legal mechanisms are when it comes to service of this type of notice of motion which, as the member opposite states, is a very unusual proceeding when it comes to a citizen of Canada who is residing in a foreign jurisdiction.

WINDSOR PACKING

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. It concerns Windsor Packing, a matter that has been raised in the Legislature on a number of occasions. I would like to ask the minister what new information he can provide us with on this plant, which involves 190 workers.

I am sure the minister understands that at this point the only thing that has been established, as I understand it, is that well over $1 million is owing to the workers. There are great fears at that company that the owners are going to sell off the assets separately, therefore making it impossible to find new owners for the company and re-establish these jobs in the city of Windsor.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member is correct when he states there are unusual circumstances involved in the Windsor Packing collapse. There is a thorough investigation going on at the present time by the Ontario Provincial Police. For that reason, I am a little reluctant to enter into any detailed discussion.

The total amount of money that is involved in vacation pay, unpaid wages and termination pay totals $711,000, with severance pay in excess of $503,000, so it is well over $1 million. Almost $1.25 million is involved. The receivers are providing, and have been providing, the employment standards branch with an estimate of the assets and liabilities, and the branch is continuing to monitor the situation. I also understand that the United Food and Commercial Workers are contemplating action under the Ontario business corporations tax.

Mr. Cooke: Is the minister able to confirm that the owners of this company have rejected two offers to purchase this company and thereby preserve the jobs? Would he also give a commitment to the union involved with this company that he will meet with it? I understand the union has requested a meeting and at this time it has been referred instead to the plant closure review committee. The biggest concern of the union is that it is not getting the kind of information it needs to pass on to its members and to find out exactly what is happening to their jobs.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I was not aware the union had requested a meeting with me. It might well be the case, as the member says, that it has been advised it should be meeting with the plant closure review committee, but I have no objection to meeting with it. I would be happy to do so --

I am sorry, what was the other part of the honourable member's question?

Mr. Cooke: The other part was to do with offers to purchase.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Yes, whether I was aware. I have heard rumours to that effect, but I cannot substantiate the matter he has raised.

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier on Ontario's long-term economic prospects. The Premier no doubt knows that probably a quarter or more of the people who are unemployed in Ontario have lost their jobs permanently. The Premier is also aware that the place of Canada and Ontario in the productivity list was 12 out of 14 of the western democracies and that our productivity levels seem to have been not only not increasing but falling.

Would the Premier indicate what his government is going to do in terms of the long-term economic prospects for Ontario, given the fact that short-term job creation is only for an 18-month period. What are we going to do after this recession, which we may never fully get out of?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I want to start my answer by saying I am very optimistic about the long-term economic future of this province. That will come as no great surprise to the member. I know he shares that with me. I know in his own constituency he says --

Mr. T. P. Reid: Especially with a Liberal government.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I thought it would be Liberal- Labour -- or is it Labour-Liberal? I never know which "L" comes first. All I know is it is a double "L". I would say to the --

Mr. McClellan: Liberal anti-labour.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member is being provocative, Mr. Speaker.

In terms of the long-term economic prospects, I am quite optimistic. In terms of some industries and the assessment of productivity, I am not going to try to debate those here in the House. Some of those reports come from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development and others, and when productivity is measured there is a great concentration on wage levels. in fairness, and I have no hesitation in saying this, productivity does not include wage levels alone.

There are many other aspects to productivity: the upgrading of technology within some of our industries; the tax regimes have some impact; and in many industries in this province, for example, the steel industry, we are really quite competitive. We should be a little hesitant in just assuming some of these reports are totally accurate. In terms of the labour force of this province, I think it is competitive in the quality of work and the dedication to its activity.

It is important to point out that the government has taken certain initiatives in the technology fields. In microelectronics one can look with some measure of confidence and enthusiasm at the figures being mentioned. The potential employment in the Ottawa Valley, for instance, is extremely encouraging.

I cannot say to the member just when all of these jobs will come on stream. I was in Ottawa at the opening of that centre, along with two or three of his colleagues -- and I was delighted to see them there; they rushed down to have their pictures taken, even the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) who sort of wanted to get right in front of the camera -- and they too shared that degree of enthusiasm, as did the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), who was not far behind.

10:50 a.m.

In terms of the auto sector, I am not going to say we are going to reach the figures of some periods in the 1970s, but a few days ago, in Detroit, I had discussions with the multinationals in the parts sector. They are not saying we are going to reach the same levels necessarily, but they are optimistic in terms of a total North American production. That represents about 24 per cent of the economy of this province.

In terms of the capacity we have internally within Ontario, with the college system, with our high school system, to adjust our educational programs or have training programs, I say very objectively, I do not think there is a jurisdiction in North American that is in a better position, with the physical facilities and the people, to accommodate what the changes will be.

Mr. Swart: Time.

Mr. McClellan: Time.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Time? I would say in a very simple sense, I really am quite optimistic in the long term.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I think there is a delay-of-game penalty here, Mr. Speaker.

In any case, we all share the Premier's optimism, but I think we would like to see something a little more specific in terms of what our prospects and goals should be.

In that light, would the Premier consider establishing some kind of body parallel to the one that has been set up in Ottawa? I suggest perhaps a select committee of all members of the Legislature to consider the long-term economic prospects of Ontario, perhaps in conjunction with the federal study so the future may be a little clearer and therefore we may all be able to share a little easier the Premier's optimism.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am delighted to have the member really support my optimism. I appreciate that. I would have been very surprised if he had not of course.

Mr. Riddell: The measure of productivity leaves some question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member is the first one --

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Speaking of productivity, the member would agree with me that in the agricultural sector we are very productive, are we not?

Mr. Riddell: Too productive.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You see, I knew it, too productive.

Mr. Riddell: I was talking about the productivity of this place.

Hon. Mr. Davis: There it is. We should send those figures over to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development to tell them in fact we are too productive.

Mr. Speaker: I may have to consider a delay-of-game penalty.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, but on them this time, Mr. Speaker.

If the member would go back to some of the thoughts expressed by Ontario at the Premiers' meeting in Halifax where it was suggested that such a group -- we really did not suggest a royal commission, but we did suggest that some type of group be established that would be representative of the total community in Canada.

I think it is fair to state that we see this mechanism as being a constructive step. I cannot tell the member whether or not the royal commission can in fact resolve some of these questions, but I do think it provides an opportunity. I really question, and I am not being negative about this, the advisability of having, say, a parallel group operating here within Ontario.

Quite obviously, when the royal commission deals with the manufacturing sector, a good part of its focus will be on Ontario and Quebec. That does not minimize the manufacturing sector in the other provinces, but those are the two provinces where most of it is at least located.

On the question of a select committee, I am not sure. I will give this some consideration. I guess I often go back to the views of the member's own colleague, the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon), who has always sort of planted in my mind a doubt as to the real productivity of a select committee. I very often listen to his words of advice.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, in view of the very obvious productivity of the select committee on economic and cultural nationalism, which was looking at a number of these questions a decade ago in the early 1970s, will the Premier not consider that since a committee like that was extremely productive 10 years ago, a select committee on the economic future of Ontario could be equally productive now and could help this Legislature to focus on the very real economic problems of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I actually have more enthusiasm than sometimes is expressed from across the House with respect to the role of a select committee. I would only say to the honourable member as well, that in part of this assessment one would have to anticipate that such a select committee would be pretty objective and nonpartisan in its approach.

I know the member for Ottawa Centre would give me the undertaking that there would be no sort of philosophical points of view expressed, and that the assessment would be totally objective, focused and constructive in nature. The only problem is that while he would give me that undertaking I am not sure, human nature being what it is, that it would necessarily he fulfilled.

Ms. Bryden: After that long exchange with the Premier I hope I can get a shorter and more productive answer from the Minister of Community and Social Services on my question.

SHELTER ALLOWANCES

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Community and Social Services, in light of the recent reports that in 1983 the three interval houses in Metro Toronto are facing substantial deficits if they do not receive increased funding and may have to close their doors, if he will indicate if he is planning any sort of additional provincial funding this fall to these very essential shelters for battered women so that they can cover their operating costs this winter and do necessary maintenance work on the houses?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, we are taking a look at that. I am not going to do anything province-wide this fall but we will certainly look at those particular operations. It would be awfully nice if the member would point out that some of the rates were raised already.

Ms. Bryden: Is the minister aware that the standing committee on social development, which held two weeks of public hearings on the subject of battered wives last July, received many reports that the present system of per diem grants shared by the province and municipalities is totally inadequate to meet the needs of the victims of family violence, and that most shelters have to devote an inordinate amount of time to fund-raising as a result?

Therefore, will he consider a system of provincial block grants, not only to maintain existing interval houses but to encourage the establishment of women's shelters and services for battered wives in areas of the province not served with such facilities?

Hon. Mr. Drea: With all due respect, I do not think the honourable member knows what she is talking about. Indeed, I would think that she would be very wary of the province going into direct block funding and removing the municipal component. I would humbly suggest that she ponder that over the weekend.

We are doing two things. First, we want to look at averaging payments so that it is not confined to the occupancy of the individual bed. Second, some weeks ago a directive went out to every municipal social assistance operation in the province, particularly to the very small ones, asking that we be informed in writing of exactly what provisions those municipalities were making for women and children in that particular type of situation.

We were not suggesting that very small townships have to build interval houses. What we wanted to know was what arrangements they have when somebody comes to them in that particular situation, especially what arrangements they have when somebody comes to them in that situation at about 10 or 11 o'clock at night, which is when it happens. Therefore, I think, in some fairness to the ministry, we have been moving ahead on some of these matters.

One last comment to the member, who does not really appear to grasp all of this, although I know her heart is in the right place: much of the present financing of such interval houses or transition houses -- I am talking about the initial capital and so forth -- is coming by way of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. via write-downs of mortgages, etc.

11 a.m.

DISPOSAL OF NUCLEAR WASTES

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. I rose in my place the other day on a matter of personal privilege to see whether I could get an answer from him as to the status of the enlarging of the ordnance site for nuclear waste disposal in the lower Niagara River. I waited three or four days for the minister to answer, but he did not seem to be interested in responding. It would appear this matter has been off and on again three or four times.

There has been some considerable amount of liquid waste dumped from that site into the lower Niagara River without permission, and there seems to be a great deal of activity in that ordnance site, which contains the waste from the nuclear bombs that were dropped on Japan. I wonder whether the minister has a good grip on that situation and whether he is going to rely on citizens' groups to protect the environment of our side of the river or whether he will get involved to the degree he should and know what is going on in that lower river.

Does he know, and will he encourage his ministry to find out, what is going on in the United States of America in that ordnance site?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, my failure to respond to the point of personal privilege the other day related more to the fact that the Speaker found that it was not a point of personal privilege, and therefore I did not have an opportunity to respond at the time. He said I would respond at an appropriate time. I suppose now is an appropriate time since the honourable member has raised it as a question.

But I also did not like to point out to the member that his concern about what I had said earlier arose out of his failure to understand what it was I had said. If the member will recall, I was responding earlier to a press account of a report prepared by consultants about that site. I responded in the House with the best information I had. There was some lack of understanding the first time, but I subsequently completed that information with more accurate and complete updating as to the status of that report.

If the member will also recall, there was an indication at that time that the American authorities had made a commitment to keep us informed as the report progressed, assuring us that there had been no decision taken with respect to the future of that site. I think the appropriate time for any response from Ontario will be when there is a report that has been accepted or when some decision is about to be taken. In the meantime, I am sure we will be kept informed.

Mr. McClellan: Boring.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Listen, I cannot help it. I mean --

Mr. McClellan: Speed it up. Put some zip in it.

Hon. Mr. Norton: On Friday morning? If the member asks boring questions, then he is going to get boring answers; I am sorry. But as far as I am aware, that is the status of the matter at the moment.

Mr. Kerrio: On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker: I resent the remark that this was a boring question. I have to tell the minister that the Niagara River did not get polluted over these past 40 years because --

Mr. Speaker: Order. That really is not a point of privilege and it does not require a response.

Mr. Kerrio: He suggested it was a boring question. It was a boring answer; it was not a boring question.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Niagara Falls has a supplementary?

Mr. Kerrio: Yes, I do. A very important part of the question had to do with the dumping in the lower Niagara River of some 700,000 gallons of liquid waste from that same site. I am suggesting to the minister that he does not know what is going on in that army ordnance site in the lower Niagara River --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Kerrio: I am asking him whether he is not going to take much more action. Is he not going to look into the clean water agreement between these two great countries of ours and see whether the Americans are abusing that agreement? Is he going to get together with his federal counterpart, who says he has not talked to him on this issue, and do something to protect our environment?

Mr. Bradley: Yes or no.

Mr. Eakins: Grab the ball and run with it.

Mr. Kerrio: That's right.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I can assure the member that there will be no stone unturned and no drop ignored.

I also want to make it clear that my reference to the boring question did not relate to the member's attempts to encompass some substance in it. It was not in reference to the substance. It was in reference to the fact that it is the same question he asked a couple of months ago --

Mr. Kerrio: Address yourself to this question.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Norton: His question also related to matters that had been discussed fully in the House previously.

CLOSURE OF AUDIO LIBRARY

Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Citizenship and Culture. Is the minister aware that in the past week or two the workers and clients of the audio library for visually handicapped post-secondary students have received notice that the facility is closing and they cannot expect its services beyond the end of April? Her ministry has had that facility under study at various times, once in 1981 and again currently. Will the minister tell us what proposals will be forthcoming from the current study, and when we can expect some assurance that facility, which alone can handle the needs of post-secondary visually handicapped students, will continue on an adequate basis?

Hon. Mr. McCaffrey: Mr. Speaker, with respect, I think the member was addressing the Provincial Secretary for Social Development.

Mr. Allen: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I meant the Provincial Secretary for Social Development.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, that whole issue is going to be discussed at the next policy field meeting, at which time we hope to have an answer for those interested in that service.

11:10 a.m.

PETITION

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT BILL

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from 19 teachers of Cedar Drive Junior Public School in Scarborough opposing Bill 127.

I also have a petition from 81 citizens which reads:

"We, the undersigned, have read the brief presented to the committee on general government by the Committee of Concerned Citizens in East York and we heartily endorse the brief and earnestly request the Minister of Education to (1) upwardly revise the provincial grants to education to the level to which Premier Davis as Minister of Education committed the province, namely, to 60 per cent of the cost of education, (2) continue the present voluntary system of joint bargaining between boards and their respective teachers, (3) leave the local levy as it stands, and (4) rescind Bill 127 as it relates to the above."

I have a petition by 1,117 Peel elementary teachers registering their opposition to Bill 127. The following is a letter from the Peel Educators' Association of Brampton. It is sent by the president, J. A. Cruickshank. It says:

"The petition is signed by 1,117 Peel elementary teachers registering their opposition to Bill 127. The teachers are seriously concerned about the loss of local autonomy which will result in the passage of this bill. They also object to the special negotiations procedures which will be implemented by this legislation. Once again, I would point out that the Peel elementary teachers find this proposed legislation objectionable and suggest that it should be withdrawn immediately."

MOTION

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the supplementary estimates tabled today be referred to the following committees for consideration within the hours already allocated to those ministries:

Agriculture and Food, and Treasury and Economics to the committee of supply; Attorney General to the standing committee on administration of justice; Consumer and Commercial Relations, Office of the Ombudsman and Office of the Assembly to the standing committee on general government; and Health to the standing committee on social development.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Ashe moved, seconded by Mr. McCague, first reading of Bill 188,

An Act to amend the Assessment Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, this bill has three main purposes: (1) to strengthen the

section 86 reassessment program by providing for new pipeline rates when a municipality is reassessed and, by clarifying the basis of comparison for assessments under appeal, to ensure that the comparison is only to similar properties within the same property class; (2) to provide for the return of assessment rolls for municipal taxation at present levels of assessment except where market-value-based assessment has been introduced; and (3) to further clarify and update certain operating provisions within the Assessment Act.

I am pleased to report that more than half of all municipalities in Ontario now have been reassessed on a market value basis. Approximately 70 more municipalities are considering implementation of the

section 86 reassessment program for 1983 taxation. Given this progress, this bill will allow us to continue with a strengthened

section 86 program in those areas that choose to proceed with a market-value- based reassessment.

VITAL STATISTICS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Cassidy moved, seconded by Mr. Renwick, first reading of Bill 189,

An Act to amend the Vital Statistics Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I prepared this bill this morning in the light of the press reports of the Supreme Court of Ontario decision yesterday in the case of Cynthia Callard, a former Ottawa woman, and her efforts to name her son after her own surname rather than the surname of her husband, from whom she is separated, or the father of the child, with whom she does not have a relationship now.

There is an obvious injustice in the law in the case of a woman who, for all practical purposes, is single now but cannot be treated as such because she is separated from her husband. If she is separated and not divorced and if her child is fathered by another man, the current law says she can give her child the name of the father, the name of the husband or a joint name incorporating her name and the name of either the father or the husband, but she does not have the privilege a single woman would have of giving the child her own surname.

I think it is fairly clear that this was an oversight in the law. It should be corrected. I would like to see young James Callard able legally to have his mother's name and to have his birth registered by Christmas, since he is three years old already.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, with consent yesterday we left the statement of business for next week, which I would now like to give to the House.

Today we are beginning consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food in committee of supply.

On Monday, November 29, in the afternoon, we will deal with the no-confidence motion of the official opposition standing in the name of the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid). In the evening, we will resume consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food in committee of supply.

On Tuesday, November 30, in the afternoon and evening, the House will consider Bill 179 in committee of the whole.

On Wednesday, December 1, in the morning, the usual three committees may meet: general government, justice and resources development.

On Thursday, December 2, in the afternoon, there will be private members' ballot items standing in the names of the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) and the member of Chatham-Kent (Mr. Watson). In the evening, we will continue with Bill 179 in committee of the whole House.

On Friday, December 3, the House will further consider the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food in committee of supply.

I also wish to indicate to the House that we will begin sitting on Wednesday afternoons, from two o'clock until six o'clock, on December 8.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I am tabling the answers to questions 310, 311, 487, 548, 651 and 658 to 665, inclusive, all standing on the Notice Paper.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FOOD

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to lead off the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food for the fiscal year 1982-83.

I must say I had hoped we would be able to do this in committee, where the atmosphere perhaps would be a little less formal, a little more relaxed, and we could have a better interplay and exchange of ideas and concerns. But I understand the problems of the House leaders in ordering the business of the House and the committees; so, for the first time in my experience at least, we will be doing them here in the chamber.

11:20 a.m.

I understand that some members wanted to get away earlier today, and I thank them for agreeing to stay. It was suggested, if they want to take an hour off my estimates, I could move adjournment around 12 and they could get on to some other commitments they had in mind but --

Mr. Riddell: We are going to hang on every precious word.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I am sure the member will. He may hang on other things, one never knows.

The Deputy Chairman: I would be pleased to accommodate that as well, if there is any way.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I think not, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to examine the estimates of my ministry in the context of this fast-moving and dramatically shifting world which often finds agriculture and food issues at its centre stage.

I will take the first few minutes to review a number of developments that are taking place globally and will have major effects on world export markets and trade in agricultural products. I do so as our farmers are part of, and are certainly affected by, such global issues.

North American farmers have harvested bumper crops this year. These high yields, combined with a generally depressed world economy, have created poor prices this year and will likely do so next year, or so we are told.

Canadian farmers are being prevented from realizing market opportunities because of uncertainty on the part of western world banks with regard to the extending of export credit. Much of this uncertainty has been created by the prevailing economic situation which has reduced the export earnings of many countries obtained from traditional sources such as oil and mineral products.

For instance, the main stumbling block to extensive exports of North American grain is a shortage of readily available financing. This lack of financing has created an apparent glut of grain on the world markets when, in fact, there is no surplus. In fact, there is a strong demand from both the Comecon countries and many developing nations, but they simply lack the necessary buying power.

These and other factors have substantial impact on agriculture in this nation and, because of the importance of that sector on the fact and fabric of our national economy, it has effects on our national lifestyle. When we talk of agriculture, we are talking about 10 or 15 per cent of our gross national product, 250,000 jobs in the processing of food, another 250,000 jobs in transportation and distribution, 600,000 and more at the retail level, as well as our thousands and thousands of farmers. In all, 18 per cent of the Canadian labour force is employed in the agrifood system. Agriculture accounts for more than 10 per cent of our national exports.

There are various proposals for changes in the system to meet, among other problems, the challenges we face on the international front. For instance, there is Canagrex, the federal government's proposal now in the final stages of legislative approval in the House of Commons. This proposal has created much controversy and has drawn a barrage of opposition.

The federal Minister of Agriculture, my friend Mr. Whelan, has said he hopes Canagrex can be useful in providing export credit, promotion, market intelligence, joint ventures, government-to-government sales and other benefits. He has said we need a central body like Canagrex to help develop our agrifood export potential. He also claims to have identified markets for about $500 million in potential export sales that could be made with help from an agency like Canagrex.

In Switzerland, current discussions are taking place concerning the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. If the honourable members had a chance to read the Globe and Mail this morning, I am sure they would have been interested in the

article on page B3 of the Report on Business regarding the discussions in Geneva, the difficulties of those discussions and the concerns some have about the common agricultural policy of the European Economic Community.

The United States is particularly concerned with the large amounts of subsidization the EEC provides to its agricultural exports to alleviate the huge surpluses occurring because of its agricultural support policies.

If I may digress from my text for a second, as part of a trade mission to England and Europe for a week in June, I took the opportunity to meet with officials of the EEC in Brussels who are responsible for the administration of the common agricultural policy and all its regulations. They are themselves very concerned because the CAP now accounts for about 75 per cent of the expenditures of the European Economic Community.

The agricultural agreements were among the first and they are the most lasting and most thorough of the agreements reached among the signatories of the Treaty of Rome, which founded the EEC in the late 1950s. They are concerned for other reasons than those which are concerning the United States, and us for that matter.

If some of these issues are not resolved, there is a distinct possibility, as has been alluded to in this morning's paper and recently in other media, that a major trade war could commence, with increased tariffs that could have an overall negative impact on world trade.

There are also discussions among major farm and political leaders in the United States and Canada centring on the possible formation of a cartel involving the wheat exporting countries. These talks grow out of worry about huge grain surpluses in the United States and the cost of subsidies.

As a quid pro quo to continued high input levels of Japanese manufactured goods, the United States is pressing very hard to open up the Japanese domestic market for agricultural products and thus create, at least from their perspective, a more balanced trade position. Canada and Ontario should clearly support this position and seek the same reciprocal export opportunity.

Before I leave the matter of Japan, I should tell honourable members that in about five weeks' time, at the request of the Ontario Pork Producers' Marketing Board, I will be leading a trade mission to Tokyo for four or five days to attempt to capitalize with them on the Japanese market for pork, of which Canada is currently the second largest supplier. That market would seem to have some significant opportunities for us, particularly because of the difficulties experienced this year by their major supplier, Denmark. We will attempt to capitalize on that opportunity and to expand that market for us.

On the domestic front, there are a number of significant national issues that are key concerns for Ontario. Among these are the national agreements for chickens, eggs and turkeys and the issue of overbase quota allocations and future growth. Ontario's position, which I will detail more fully later, is simple. We fully support -- and I underline that -- national marketing agreements and merely want a fair share of the overbase quota established on a rational, definitive and defensible basis.

The Crow rate transportation proposals now are under consideration in Ottawa. The final settlement of this issue could have great meaning for the future development of the Canadian beef industry and has special meaning for Ontario, which again I will mention later.

There are confrontations between producers and provinces and between provinces and the federal government involving the supply management system and other issues. In British Columbia, for instance and I regret seeing this -- dairymen seem determined to pull out of the national supply management system for milk, and that could affect the entire structure. Manitoba poultry producers complain about the illegal importation of chickens from eastern Canada.

We have yet to see a red meat strategy come from the federal government as promised for the spring, for the summer, for the fall and now, maybe, some time in December. We are seeing lower commodity prices and financial instability that has affected many farmers.

It is important to recognize that each of these events and conditions on the national and international levels has its own influence on the future development of the agricultural industry in Canada and in Ontario. Export markets, of course, are vital to the continued growth of this industry. At the same time, competition with other nations, such as those of the EEC, must be on a fair basis and must not become a series of wrestling matches between national treasuries.

It is against this backdrop that our farmers, processors and others in the food chain enter 1983. Overall, the outlook cannot be too optimistic. Commodity prices are likely to continue to be weak, and many issues cannot be resolved over the short term. However, in the longer term I feel we have reason for optimism. Our farmers are world-efficient and the demand for food products is increasing, not diminishing. We are in a position to capitalize on this fast-moving and changing world once the global situation improves, as it will inevitably.

11:30 a.m.

I would like to move now to a closer look at my ministry's position in the agricultural and food industry and at the respected position which our farmers and processors occupy in provincial, national and international esteem.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Food provides a broad range of services to all sectors of the food chain, from the agricultural producer to the processor, to the retailer and to the consumer. As the oldest ministry in the provincial government -- ours was the first ministry, established in 1868 -- it has a long and proud tradition of directing the bulk of its services and energy at the primary producers.

In the past several years, and particularly today, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food is expanding and improving the level of service directed at processors, retailers and consumers. This is in recognition of agriculture in Ontario being not only a fundamental industry of the province but a modern, ever-changing business. It needs co-operation and co-ordination in all of its sectors for it to evolve and to succeed.

You will find in the estimates a continuation of the high level of services offered to the primary producer, the farmer. You will find new incentives directed to help the producer in a number of areas, including the most pressing at this time, the financial area. There is no slackening of our determination to create and to preserve a bright, stable future for these vital, resourceful citizens of our province.

New incentives I announced as late as this week include an extension of the Ontario farm adjustment assistance program for a second year and implementation of a two-stage restructuring of the farm tax reduction program. You will also find enunciated in new programs and initiatives our determination to create a processing, retailing and delivery system capable of using to the full all the bounty our province can offer to our own citizens, to the people of Canada and to a world that requires our production and our expertise in this field.

The ministry's overall strategy contains a two-pronged approach for the expansion of the markets available to our farmers, processors and sellers. On one hand, we are doing all we can to promote the sale of Ontario produce outside of Ontario. This program is meeting with great success, as will be shown in later remarks.

On the other hand, we are directing great effort and a substantial amount of funding to the replacement of imported food and agricultural products with home-grown and home-processed produce. Again in this area, our efforts and the co-operation we see across the whole system are paying off with very rewarding dividends. The potential in this area is tremendous.

Before I detail our efforts in these and other programs, it would be instructive to look at what we already have in this fertile and energetic province. This province is the key food producing and food processing province in the Dominion. Last year, Ontario provided about 27 per cent of the Canadian total in farm-gate sales. Our output was worth almost $5 billion.

In the last year for which figures are available, 1980, total factory shipments of the food and beverage industry in Ontario amounted to about $10 billion. That was close to 50 per cent of the Canadian total. When you consider all aspects of the agriculture and food industry, it comprises almost 20 per cent of Ontario's gross domestic product. This does not include other incidentals such as fuel, transportation and even farm machinery. So obviously, if you put everything in, it is even more than that.

An industry of this size means jobs. Ontario farms employ directly about 100,000 farmers and farm family members. They also employ about 50,000 paid workers. The food, beverage and leather manufacturing industry directly employs about 114,000 workers. When you add all these you have a total well above 260,000 people. Again, if you add jobs dependent on these supply sectors, you can estimate that one in five jobs in Ontario can be attributed to the agrifood system.

It is certainly worthy of mention that this sector of production has been making a unique contribution to the battle against inflation for some time. In 1960, the proportion of disposable income spent on food in Canada was 21.6 per cent. At the moment it is 17.7 per cent. The only figures in the world that are lower than that are in the USA.

According to figures from the United States Department of Agriculture, in 1980, a citizen of Ottawa, Ontario, would have worked 8.5 hours to purchase a grocery basket of 21 common foods. That was the same as in Washington, DC. It would have taken a person in Stockholm in that same year 13.5 hours; an Italian, 15.5 hours; a resident of Tokyo, 26 hours; and a Dane in Copenhagen, 10 hours of work to purchase exactly the same food basket. There is no city or jurisdiction that had lower costs than we had. Those figures cast some light on the contribution of our farmers and our processors.

It is because of the efficiency of our agricultural sector that Canadians spend so relatively little of their disposable income on food.

Of course, market forces play a large

part in keeping prices down but over the long term it has been the Canadian and the Ontario farmer's energy and initiative that has given us the best and nearly the least expensive food in the world.

Twenty-five years ago, each Ontario farmer produced enough food to feed 30 people. Today, the average Ontario farmer produces enough to feed at least 90 people.

Ontario's 82,448 farms represent 26 per cent of all farmers in Canada, and Ontario farmers produce far more than their share of agricultural goods. For example, Ontario leads Canada in the production of poultry, eggs, lamb, fruits, flowers and nursery plants, vegetables, nearly all of the tobacco and corn, and all of the soybeans.

Ontario is a close second to that great cattle country, Alberta, in finishing beef for market. Ontario is the largest producer of milk for fluid purposes in Canada and our milk is the best in the world. We are second in hog production. We grow about 40 per cent of all the fruit in Canada.

It is an expensive business to remain number one. In 1981, our farmers spent over $3.5 billion in operating their farms. Farming is a high-risk, capital-intensive business. It is also a highly competitive business on a world scale and an industry in which research and development changes are coming into being as fast as in any industry except perhaps the frenetic world of computers.

It is the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food to help maintain the viability of farming in Ontario, to expand research and development in league with the farmer and the processor, to support all forms of market expansion and to advise and support the Canadian and the Ontario consumer. It is a responsibility we take very seriously and one we are carrying out extremely well because of the willingness of the entire industry to work together. To carry out our duties, we have a budget of $283.7 million for the fiscal year 1982-83.

I became Minister of Agriculture and Food in February of this year. On March 16, I announced a major reorganization of my ministry. That restructuring was put into place at the beginning of this fiscal year, on April 1, 1982.

The reorganization makes the ministry more responsive to the needs of our client groups and streamlines various functions so that we can be better placed to meet the many challenges I know the future will bring. I said in my announcement at that time, "The changes will create a forward-looking organization with a strong planning component, a more effective management system and an efficient grouping of programs and resources."

The reorganization will strengthen the planning, decision-making and service capacities of the ministry. I regard this as the most important change since it is absolutely critical for us to have more resources to devote to the long-range consideration. It is also crucial to set coherent strategies for the industry so that competitive opportunities can be made the most of and so that competition can be met as, when and where it emerges.

11:40 a.m.

We must have co-ordinated, well-planned provincial strategies covering the whole chain of efforts from producer onward. Complementing this activity, we are expanding the research and development activity in the ministry and stimulating R and D in the private sector through dollar-matching projects. Another important area is financial planning and we are placing greater emphasis here. We are addressing broad concerns such as income stabilization.

In addition, we are improving delivery of financial management counselling to individual farmers through county agricultural representatives and farm management consultants. We are encouraging private sector capital investment in the food industry by creating a receptive climate and sound strategies.

I am particularly sensitive to what might be described as the dichotomy between urban and rural societies. In an effort to enable one side to know the other side better, I am having my ministry promote the shared interests of the rural producer and the urban consumer. As part of our reorganization, therefore, I am pursuing a more aggressive marketing program stressing this mutual interest. We are expanding the Foodland Ontario program as a result of our restructuring. It will continue to ensure Ontario products are first in the minds of Ontario consumers. Our aim is to reduce Ontario's large trade deficit in food products.

To promote expanded investment and increased value added to the products that leave the farm gate, we have established a food processing branch. We are ensuring that the quality assurance programs of the ministry, in livestock, dairy and fruit and vegetable inspection, are linked and enhanced. Food-land preservation and improvement require special attention. Ontario has more than 11 million acres in crops and pastures and we must make certain this vital resource is kept intact. We also have the potential to increase this acreage, partly by opening farming opportunities in the north which could add fully 30 per cent to our agricultural land bank.

To support our farmers in general, the ministry's technical advisory services in fields such as soil management, pest management and animal health are being enriched. This expansion includes the necessary backup laboratory testing and analysis services. In detail, the new structure forms the ministry into three new functional groups. Each group is headed by an assistant deputy minister. Six new divisions were created, each headed by an executive director. The changes realign many operating branches and create some new branches.

There is now an assistant deputy minister over a functional group concentrating on marketing and development. This group contains three divisions of marketing, quality and standards, and food-land preservation and improvement. A second functional group has been set up for technology and field services. It contains two divisions of education and research, and advisory and technical services.

Mr. Nixon: What page are you on?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Sixteen.

Mr. Nixon: That is 16 out of 83.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I am reading slowly.

Mr. Ruston: The Provincial Secretary for Social Development should listen to this.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Pardon?

Mr. Ruston: She should relieve him once in a while. She might improve it. She is from Lincoln.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Listen, the Provincial Secretary for Social Development knows quite a bit about the fruit and vegetable industry, particularly the vegetable industry, in that great part of the province. She could quite capably handle that.

The third assistant deputy minister, that is, the assistant deputy minister of finance and policy, is responsible for four branches, including insurance and stabilization, farm assistance programs, economics and strategic planning. In addition, reporting to the deputy minister directly are the administrative division, legal services, office services, audit functions and our communications branch.

The purpose behind this reorganization is to deliver services in more efficient, effective ways. Living up to that objective, I am happy to say this restructuring process itself is being carried out in a careful, gradual manner without an expansion of my ministry. It is being accomplished within the limitations of our current staffing and financial constraints. That is to say, we have done all this restructuring and regrouping without adding staff and without increasing our budget for staff.

Mr. Riddell: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: It is important to note that the New Democratic Party critic is not here to listen to the opening statement of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. I find that somewhat odd.

The Deputy Chairman: Some day we are going to find out what points of order are. That is not a point of order, but you wanted to get it on the record and you have accomplished that. The minister may continue.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: It is an interesting point at least, Mr. Chairman.

Financial support for producers: The past several years have faced both the ministry and the farmers with financial problems, the likes of which have not been experienced at least since the Depression. The ministry has responded to these downturns brought on by the poor world economy with a series of programs and initiatives to assist the farmer with both direct aid and expertise.

Perhaps the most important initiative on which we embarked was our campaign to bring about a national stabilization program. Such a program has been talked about for many years and, in fact, attempted with less than satisfactory results. Now, though, is the time to make this program a reality that can provide a sound and predictable future for our farmers across this whole country.

As the members will know, I went to a meeting of federal and provincial agriculture ministers in Halifax, in July of this year, to offer a concrete proposal for a national agricultural stabilization plan. At that same meeting, our colleague the federal Minister of Agriculture indicated he would bring forward a red meat strategy by the summer of 1982. Our proposal was based on fact and history. The federal government did establish an income-stabilization program in 1958. Even with revisions since then, this program does not satisfy the requirements of both the provinces and the producers.

At the moment, the provinces have a mixture of provincial stabilization programs and ad hoc support programs. These create a balkanization of our agricultural sector with various levels of support and with competition between producers and provinces -- in fact, between provincial Treasurers.

These problems have been acknowledged by the provinces. In November -- just three weeks ago -- in Regina, with only Newfoundland absent because of a special fall session of their House of Assembly, the provinces agreed to a national stabilization plan as needed today. They made that observation in the light of the inadequacies of existing programs and in the light of the delay of the federal government in bringing forward its red meat strategy, or any other plan for that matter, to give farmers a clear idea of what the future holds.

The Regina conference decided that red meats should be placed under a voluntary producer plan without the supply management element. This plan can also be extended to any farm products not under supply management, which remains a viable system for those who want it, those who choose it. A committee can easily be formed to discuss issues such as cost of production, price variations and regional differences. With co-operation, we can see implementation of this national income stabilization plan in 1983.

The objectives of my proposal are to provide long-term income stability for agricultural producers, permit producers in each province to compete on an equal footing, minimize expensive ad hoc support programs by provinces, create national stabilization price levels, establish coverage limits and set entry and exit provisions.

All these goals are aimed at creating stop-loss support which will allow market forces to operate and avoid overproduction. The objectives of the program are, I believe, undeniably beneficial to both the producers and the consumers of this land. It is worth noting at this point that a national income stabilization program for the agricultural sector need not cost the federal government any additional money, since it is already paying a minimum of 90 per cent on named commodities in the Agricultural Stabilization Act.

Ontario has taken other steps on its own to bring about more stability in various sectors of farming. The ministry this year reintroduced income stabilization for Ontario growers of corn, winter wheat, soybeans and white beans. This program was first introduced three years ago and had a high rate of participation. This is a no-lose proposition for the farmer as his premiums are returned with interest at the end of the program. If a payout occurs during the life of the program, the government matches the farmer's premium on a two-to-one basis.

Barley was added to the program this year because it is becoming an important cash crop in the province. It has a relatively low input cost coupled with reasonably high yields. Barley is also more important because we are concerned with promoting more crop rotation to reduce soil erosion and to help control various insects, plant diseases and weeds. In this vein, I might add that we are looking into the possibility of developing a hay marketing agency which would help farmers find a market for hay grown as a soil improvement crop as well as a cash crop.

11:50 a.m.

Despite our various programs aimed at smoothing out some of the worst swings of this highly unpredictable industry, the world economy has dealt some farmers blows from which they cannot recover without a special assistance drive. In March of this year, my ministry announced new and expanded criteria for the then very new Ontario farm adjustment assistance program, our key program for aiding farmers beset by the most serious of today's financial squeezes.

The new criteria made this program available to more farmers. It was first announced in December 1981 and provided $60 million to help Ontario farmers deal with interest rates. The changes that were adopted in March were: the value of production in 1981 which farmers had to have to qualify for assistance was reduced from $25,000 to $12,000; and the remaining equity in the farm must not be less than 10 per cent but the upper limit was raised to not more than 60 per cent from the former limit of 50 per cent. The changes are benefiting small farmers, particularly in the northern and eastern parts of the province.

I must again give credit to several of the members on this side -- the member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Lane), the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. J. M. Johnson), the member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Pollock) -- and others who approached me shortly after I became minister to suggest a number of these changes so they would be more beneficial to the smaller farm operations in the east and the north.

There is a third program criterion which remains unchanged. A farmer's interest and principal payments on outstanding debt for farming purposes must exceed 20 per cent of farm operating costs. This farm adjustment assistance program is meant to complement the federal government's small business bond and Farm Credit Corp. special assistance programs. I have asked the federal agriculture minister to allocate additional funds for the FCC program and to extend it through this fiscal year.

The Ontario program, which actually became operational on January 4, 1982, is aimed at farmers in need of financial restructuring, reorganization and consolidation and who can benefit from such help to become financially viable. It offers farm business management counselling in addition to direct financial assistance in the form of bridge financing. It has proven to be very successful. So much so, in fact, that in my policy address this week to the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, I announced that OFAAP would be extended for another year.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Food, of course, has a variety of programs delivering grants and support payments to producers and agricultural and horticultural societies and agencies. These programs range from grants paid in lieu of taxes on institutional properties to payments made to several thousand farmers under the sow weaner stabilization plan. These amounts will be detailed in our supporting documents. I will speak more about programs which have undergone significant changes or which, in fact, have been initiated for this fiscal year.

Under the category of plans which offer protection to producers, I point to the new Ontario beef cattle financial protection program. This program came into effect on September 1, 1982. My ministry made an initial grant of $25,000, which is the maximum allowed for in the legislation, to the fund which forms the heart of the program.

This program requires licensing of cattle dealers, including packing plants, slaughterhouse operators, country dealers, community sales operators and commission agents. We expect about 550 of these dealers to be licensed within the calendar year. To date, we have more than 480.

The program is designed to ensure protection to producers of slaughter and feeder cattle. It came about after the bankruptcy of one major dealer, with subsequent losses to farmers who had delivered cattle for sale. It was not only the result of one episode, however. There had been a string of bankruptcies in the recent past that made it appropriate to implement this program at this time.

It includes four elements: licensing, to which I have already referred; proof of financial responsibility of cattle dealers; prompt payment within 48 hours of sale; and an industry-financed fund to compensate sellers in the event of defaults. This fund is administered by a 10-member livestock financial protections board with George McLaughlin of Beaverton, who I know is well-known to members on all sides of the House, as its founding chairman. Sellers dealing with unlicensed dealers are not protected on their transactions.

Under this program, all beef cattle buyers are to be licensed. The parties to all sales of beef cattle are each required to pay 20 cents a head into a compensation fund. Current legislation empowers the ministry to make a $250,000 interest-free loan and to guarantee further loans from financial institutions of up to $1 million to cover any deficit in the fund. In the case of a default on payment by a licensed dealer, the fund will compensate the producer for 90 per cent of the amount owing.

Our crop insurance program has been invaluable and available since 1966. It is an item of importance that is becoming more popular among our farmers, as having a good crop each year is even more critical. In this year, the crop insurance program has insurance liabilities of $468 million. In August of this year an early frost, one of the earliest frosts in fact, hit the tobacco, peanut and other crops in Elgin, Norfolk and Kent counties. The loss to the tobacco crop primarily was covered by $75 million of insurance payments. The peanut crop was 95 per cent covered by insurance. This frost damage shows how valuable crop insurance is to our producers.

A new program to upgrade farm property was unveiled in the May budget of the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller). The program was called the Ontario farmstead improvement program and provided financial assistance to farmers to upgrade fences and outbuildings this year. Originally, this job creation program was intended to provide $5 million to farmers for work completed this year. Initial response was overwhelming in that it generated $12 million in notices of intent by farmers planning to improve their properties. We intend to honour all notices received by our July 30 deadline, provided the eligible work is completed before the end of this calendar year.

Our funds cover grants of 50 per cent of the cost of eligible improvements to a maximum of $2,000 per farming operation. Eligibility for assistance was a value of production on the farm of at least $12,000 or those who own and farm a minimum of 40 hectares. All improvements made to a list of items have to be carried out by local contractors or by labour hired by the farmer using materials bought before the end of calendar year 1982.

Recently the ministry has found another way to help the farmer help himself. The vacation farm, long known to tourists in Europe, is now an established business in Ontario and is providing some farmers with a welcome new source of income. If my memory serves me correctly, the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel had a resolution here in the spring of this year urging more support for this concept and for the fledgling association --

Mr. Nixon: Could we go to his place to stay for the weekend?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I am sure for a reasonable fee he would gladly receive the member, maybe for longer.

My ministry is supporting the Ontario Vacation Farm Association with a five-year financial assistance program. This arose out of a meeting I had with the ladies who form the executive of this group about six months ago. This year, 1982-83, is the first year of this support and we are providing a $14,100 grant. Grants over the five years will support this association until it builds up its own resources. The grants are set up on a sliding scale linked to the revenue derived from the association's membership fees.

In addition to financial help, my ministry is also providing personnel to act as advisers, as well as publishing a brochure listing the vacation farms. I am sure all the members saw that brochure, and I hope they ensured it was widely distributed in their areas. I am particularly happy to see this kind of enterprise growing in our province because it promotes a better understanding of agriculture among urban people. So far the Ontario Vacation Farm Association has more than doubled its members from 1981. It sets guidelines for member farms and ensures high standards of accommodation.

Any discussion of finances in this province inevitably comes around to a discussion of restraint, at least whenever the government is involved. My interest in the government's inflation restraint program is as it relates, or, more accurately, as it does not relate to agriculture. While the Inflation Restraint Board limits increases in various government controlled and regulated prices and costs, it does not extend to producer prices in the agricultural community or even to commodity prices controlled by the marketing boards.

12 noon

Restraints on producer prices are not considered necessary for various reasons: controls on producer prices might not affect retail prices to the same degree; input prices such as energy are not controlled and to put controls on producers' prices would result in unfair financial strain for those producers; net farm incomes have been declining this year and may continue on the same trend next year; the wage component of the agricultural sector is small, unlike sectors such as the health field where that component can range up to 80 per cent of total costs, and, therefore, restraints on wages in the agricultural sector would not balance losses in price restraints.

Mr. Nixon: How are you going to keep the prices from falling?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: My friend, I think you are back to what I just said about stabilization. That is exactly the point of what we are trying to do with respect to a better national income stabilization program. I say it in the kindest, least partisan way I can. We need your help over there to talk to certain people in another capital city to make sure something happens and happens soon.

Mr. Nixon: Get out one of the water bombers and we will all go down there.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: If we are short of water, can we drop you?

Mr. Nixon: That is not my specialty.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: That is not your specialty.

Controls, if applied, would affect primarily the supply-managed commodities and it is in this area, comprising one third of Ontario's agricultural products, that price increases over the past year have been particularly modest. In fact, there were price declines in 1982 in chickens, eggs and turkeys.

Most supply-managed products are sold only in the domestic market. As I have said, price increases here have been very modest. Tobacco is sold on the world market and price restraints on this crop would be all but impossible to apply.

I would like to point to the price of fluid milk as an excellent example of the way our producers have shown responsible and level-headed behaviour in the past year. The price increases negotiated by the Ontario Milk Marketing Board, applied on October 18, 1982, were only 5.97 per cent or 2.62 cents per litre. The board used an updated formula base reflecting current production costs to arrive at that price, but kept the returns to producers in line with the federal government's guidelines of six and five per cent.

Of course, our proposed program of restraint was not in place at that time but the board chairman, Ken McKinnon, said at the time of the increase, "The board supports the federal government in its efforts to battle inflation..."

Milk producers have shown admirable responsibility in spite of the cost increase they themselves face from other sources in the economy which are beyond their control. For instance, in the past year, feed costs have risen by six per cent, energy and equipment maintenance by 16 per cent, and overall cash input costs have risen by a potential of nine per cent since the last price increase in November 1981.

I think the response of our farmers to our restraint programs and to the public at large in these harsh times has been an example of a sector that cares for its customers and its image. I believe the financial assistance we offer our producers in agriculture will be repaid many fold.

As I mentioned earlier, Ontario's farmers have more than 11 million acres of land under cultivation or in use as pasture land. Nine million of those acres are planted in crops. That acreage has been growing steadily and is at an all-time high today.

One of the fundamental duties of my ministry is to protect that land base, not only to see that it remains as farm land wherever possible and feasible, but is used in the best and most productive ways. We do that by providing the farmer with a variety of programs that educate him, encourage him and present him with incentives to upgrade his land.

On Tuesday, I announced a major program that will offer our farmers some relief from property taxation. The Ontario farm tax reduction program will entitle farmers to receive tax rebates worth $63 million from the provincial government in this year. Looking at the details, we see that at present farm land, buildings and residences are assessed together and rebates are paid equal to 50 per cent of total farm taxes.

Beginning with the 1984 taxation year, farm tax rebates will cover the entire property taxes on farm land and farm buildings, 100 per cent of taxes on these productive assets. I should point out that rebates are used in the program rather than exemptions because the province does not wish to interfere with the authority of a given municipality to raise taxes. Under the rebate system, the municipality retains its taxing powers and the rebate is made by the province directly to the farmer.

Farm residences, on the other hand, will no longer qualify for a tax reduction under this program. They will be treated for tax purposes in the same way as other residences in a municipality. That is to say, like any other resident in the municipality, those residents will be able to apply for farm tax credit along with their annual income tax return.

One acre surrounding a farm house will be considered a residential site except in cases where a smaller or a larger area is actually used for residential purposes. While the residence will be assessed at the same rates as all other residences in that municipality, the lot on which it sits will be assessed at 50 per cent of the value of similar properties in that municipality.

To implement these measures, the Ministry of Revenue will soon be reassessing farm properties across the province. This process will separate the assessment for farm residences and residential lots from that for farm land and outbuildings. This new tax structure will provide a stronger incentive for production by concentrating tax relief on productive farm assets as opposed to residences.

The second aspect of the tax package will be implemented immediately. I will mention the cost of that later.

The qualifying gross production value will be raised to $8,000 for the 1982 and 1983 taxation years. In 1984, the level will be $8,000 for northern and eastern Ontario and $12,000 for the rest of the province. I want to emphasize and underline that these are gross, not net production values. Applications for the 1982 tax rebates are in the mail now.

The new qualifying requirements are reasonable, when it is remembered that a farmer could reach the $12,000 level by having six cows producing for the fluid milk market -- these are current figures -- or by selling 12 slaughter cattle or by harvesting 46 acres of corn or seven acres of processing tomatoes.

In addition, any farmers who feel they have been unfairly denied rebates can take their cases to the farm tax appeal board which will be established to settle disputes regarding production criteria. This board will include representatives from the rural community. Assessment issues will continue to be the responsibility of the Ministry of Revenue.

The overall impact of the entire package will be that substantially more government funds will be channelled into agriculture through the rebate system. In the 1984 tax year, based on our preliminary forecasts, that transfer will account for $20 million more, compared with the current system, bringing the total cost of the rebate program to over $85 million. In fact, the transfer is more than $20 million.

This year we are looking at $63 million; for 1984-85, it is more than a one-third increase. As a result, we anticipate that the great majority of full-time farmers will pay lower net taxes. Higher taxes will result for only a few farmers in the program, generally speaking those having high residential assessments with small land bases and few buildings.

The great majority of full-time farmers will have their tax load reduced, releasing more funds for production. The new system will establish a progressive farm tax environment which compares very favourably with that of other jurisdictions and reinforces the financial underpinning for family farm enterprises across Ontario.

I want to stay on the subject of farm land itself for a moment and talk about soil management. It is a crucial aspect of any farm and it is an area in which there are many services offered to the farmer by a number of sources. Involved as well as my ministry are the ministries of Natural Resources, the Environment and Energy, other provincial agencies, other levels of government and community organizations.

Prior to October of this year, my ministry supported soil management through advisory services provided by our soil and crop specialists and our county agricultural representatives. Financial assistance was offered, and of course still is, through the farm productivity incentive program and grants to local branches of the Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association.

What we have been lacking, however, was co-ordination of the many initiatives and the many groups involved so that we could manage agricultural soils in the most effective way possible. In October, the plant industry branch of my ministry was reorganized to do this job. The new branch is divided into the following program areas: crop advisory services, soil and energy management, pest management, climatology and plant industry services.

The crop advisory services program amalgamates the field crop, horticulture and tobacco

section of the former soils and crops branch. This restructured branch is assuming a leadership role in co-ordinating and facilitating soil management activities across the province.

12:10 p.m.

The branch is compiling an inventory of recent and upcoming soil management programs, projects and initiatives. It is assembling special teams to handle specific soil conservation projects or problems. These include experts from all relevant fields drawn from both within and outside my ministry.

The branch is strengthening the soil classification program of the Ontario Institute of Pedology which includes staff of Agriculture Canada and of the University of Guelph as well as from my ministry. The branch is creating a data base for improved programming.

Estimates of potential for soil erosion and resulting financial loss are being developed by an interministerial committee. Soil surveys and other crop data are being used by the agricultural component of this project to determine potential losses as accurately as possible on a county-by-county basis. This survey should then highlight problem areas for necessary follow-up action. I know this is a matter of keen interest to the member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan) and we have discussed it several times.

Complementary to our compilation of these surveys and other data is a joint federal-provincial program that began in July. This is a project to develop an agricultural resource inventory for Ontario and it will cover agricultural land use and farm land tile drainage.

Work on this survey was started in July 1982 and will be finished next spring, creating about 175 jobs. Ontario's portion of the total budget of $1.4 million will be up to $700,000 and is being provided by the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development. I think you have heard of BILD from time to time. The results of this survey will be made available to any agency concerned with agricultural land use.

The information for the land-use survey has been collected by ground-based workers using aerial photographs as references to locate and to note crops and other agricultural land uses. Tile drainage data are being gathered by personal interviews with farmers.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) is to be congratulated for initiating negotiations on this project through his ministry's Ontario Manpower Commission. I might add this joint venture with the federal government is being done under the terms of, I think it is

section 38 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, which allows them to pay a certain portion of the cost. The sponsoring agency, in this case the government of Ontario, will pay the balance and take people off the unemployment rolls. it is a very worthwhile federal-provincial co-operative venture.

I have mentioned our tile drainage program and that certainly is one of the most important and most appreciated programs in my ministry. I am happy to say our support for enhancing the land base in this way has been stepped up this year.

Effective drainage can extend the growing season by three to six weeks and can effectively improve growing conditions. Tiled land can see increases in yields of from 15 to 80 per cent, depending on the crop. For example, tile drainage can increase winter wheat yields by as much as 45 per cent, I am told.

About 3,500 farmers are helped each year by our program administered through local municipalities which install or upgrade tile drainage. This work is carried out on about 200,000 acres of land each year. This assistance takes the form of 10-year, 10 per cent loans covering 60 per cent of project costs.

In May, the Treasurer announced in his budget an expansion of the funds available for tile drainage by $6 million to a level of $36 million. These funds have been allocated among the municipalities across the province.

Our program for 1982-83 also includes criteria to make it more consistent and fair. For example, the maximum loan will be 60 per cent of the cost of the work or the amount requested, whichever is the lesser. Individual municipalities may choose a lower loan rate, but it must apply uniformly to all applicants in that municipality.

Members will know that when I came to look at the program in the spring I found that in previous years there had been a wide divergence in the way municipalities were dealing with this. I found some municipalities were lending as little as 30 and 35 per cent of the costs of projects. Others, but very few, were up towards the legislated limit of 75 per cent. So in order to attempt to achieve uniformity and equity right across the province, we have recommended 60 per cent. Admittedly, some municipalities are still lending a lower percentage of the work costs, but very few compared to earlier years.

The maximum loan to an individual farmer is $60,000 on an accumulated basis on borrowings after April 1, 1980, and $20,000 in any one fiscal year. The allocation this year was the highest ever. The additional funds were reserved for allocation to the areas where the need was greatest, in particular eastern and northern Ontario.

Another program goes hand in glove with our tile drainage effort. It subsidizes municipal construction and maintenance of drain outlets. I announced on May 18, 1982, that we would increase our budget for this program by $1 million over 1981 for a total of $7.5 million. Our priorities within this program have changed and we now put more emphasis on maintenance, which preserves the value of our capital investment. This year, spending on maintenance will be $2 million, or four times the amount of last year.

Not only do we want to see our existing farm land improved and maintained, we want our agricultural land base to grow. We have an excellent opportunity to see that happen in the future of northern Ontario.

In January 1981, the Premier (Mr. Davis) released Ontario's blueprint for economic development, known as Building Ontario in the 1980s. That report contained a government commitment to increase agricultural production in the north. Northern Ontario has three million acres of potential crop land. This represents a potential 30 per cent expansion of the food land now in use in this province.

The climate of northern Ontario is as good as or better than that of the prosperous park belt, as some call it, of western Canada for growing canola, oats, barley and forage. In fact, in 1982, the Quaker Oats Co. had a major campaign to purchase the bulk of its rolled oats requirements from Ontario. In the past, apparently, it bought large quantities from out west.

In speaking to Mr. Grant, the president of Quaker Oats, about a month ago, he assured me that not only was the program successful in terms of the amount the company was able to buy in Ontario -- it originally looked at buying 1.2 million bushels, but it now looks as if it will end up with about two million bushels -- but the best yield in terms of quality came from the Timiskaming clay belt in northern Ontario.

Clearing methods, tile drainage and the evolution of superior crop varieties have been developed and demonstrated. All that remains is to apply that technology to the north.

The phasing out of the Crow's Nest Pass freight rates, which subsidize the transport of western grain, would give Ontario producers an advantage in selling this new resource because we are closer to the European market. Cattle could be finished in the north, instead of them being shipped south for that purpose.

From what I have seen in the north, we already have there a core of energetic, willing farmers with resourcefulness. We want to support that willingness with technology and encouragement. My ministry is now formulating an action plan for the development of northern agriculture. Our strategy will identify growth opportunities, set priorities and chart a clear path for northern expansion. It will be a long-term strategy requiring the continuing commitment of both the Ontario and the federal governments and the producers.

We will not be building from scratch, however. We do have a foundation on which to add. The Ontario and the federal governments are sharing the costs of the five-year, $4.7-million northern Ontario rural development agreement. There have been 800 northern Ontario farmers participating in projects under NORDA since the agreement was signed in March 1981. A total of $1.3 million was granted to clear 18,000 acres of land in the north. Another $1 million was devoted to tile drainage projects covering 17,000 acres. Forty-two farmers have received help to demonstrate new technology there.

Our northern Ontario agricultural resource centre at New Liskeard College is fulfilling its mandate to gather and distribute practical knowledge about northern farming. I might add that, during my short time as minister, we have opened several new facilities at New Liskeard and have approved several more to proceed, to make it a more complete resource for the farmers of northern Ontario.

12:20 p.m.

A ministry co-ordinated program is under way to enhance the northern agricultural base to improve farming practices and long-term development projects on individual farms. A total of $600,000 will be allocated for these projects by 11 local committees in the north composed of producers and government representatives working tinder the northern Ontario agricultural development policy.

The veterinary assistance program provides annual lump sum grants of $12,000 to vets practising in designated areas. Our aim is to ensure that producers in less populous regions have access to the same level of veterinary service as those in the rest of the province. This subsidy is paid to 27 veterinarians in 10 designated areas.

We are currently reviewing this program after public meetings were held to discuss it. A report on the program suggests abolishing the lump sum grant and instead paying veterinarians a fee per kilometre for the distance between their offices and the farm gate. This would tie the amount of the subsidy directly to the number of calls made and to the time spent in travel.

I want to emphasize this is not government policy. It is a proposal that was made in a paper produced at our request; it is currently in circulation throughout northern Ontario. We are getting regular feedback from farmers, veterinarians, local councils and others in that area.

We also have two special programs to help northern cattle producers to enhance the quality of their herds. First, the ministry offers rebates of 20 per cent of the purchase price of breeding stock that meets performance standards, and we pay 50 per cent of transportation costs for eligible breeding stock purchased in another district of Ontario or one third of costs if purchased in western Canada or Quebec.

This assistance is to bring the delivered price paid by northern farmers into line with that of the south. Of course, northern farmers have full access to the many other support programs of my ministry and have been taking full advantage of them.

There is one issue which has not as yet become very important to the whole picture. My ministry is moving at this time, however, to make certain this issue is kept in check. I speak of the ownership of farm land by nonresidents.

To address this concern, the government has enacted legislation or, more accurately, the Legislature has enacted legislation proposed by the government, to monitor the extent of foreign interests in Ontario land holdings, the Nonresident Agricultural Land Interests Registration Act.

I have an interim report on registrations filed under the act which indicates the status of nonresident interests as of March 31, 1982, or the end of the 1981-82 fiscal year. The report shows that since the effective date of the act, December 1, 1980, just two years ago, 994 registrations have been filed covering a total of 142,947 acres. In the six months following the completion of that report, a further 83 registrations were recorded covering a further 8,759 acres.

These figures add up to one per cent of Ontario farm land which is now owned by foreign interests. That figure should give no cause for alarm. However, we are giving this matter closer examination through my ministry's food land preservation branch which is strengthening its surveillance activities.

We believe there are some properties which should be registered but are not. We will use existing staff inspectors who will be appointed under the act to survey and make certain all foreign land interests are registered.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Different people. You do not think we should take unemployed people off the unemployment insurance rolls? They are the ones who were doing that work.

Mr. McKessock: It was kind of a useless job.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: You do not think it is important to know where all the tile drainage is and how the land is being used?

In addition, my colleague the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe) will move to close certain loopholes in the Land Transfer Tax Act used by some nonresidents to avoid paying the 20 per cent tax.

During the course of the estimates, the interim report of registrations on the Nonresident Agricultural Land Interests Registration Act will be made available to you.

In concluding this

section regarding our pro-grams to preserve our farm land, I would like to take a last look at the successes of the past.

The recently released Statistics Canada census of agriculture for 1981 shows the total value of Ontario agricultural products sold more than tripled during the decade 1971 to 1981. They rose from $1.4 billion to $4.9 billion.

At the heart of that growth was the improvement of land. Crop land, not including pastures, expanded by more than one million acres, reaching a post-war high of more than