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

December 6, 1977

31st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L071 - Tue 6 Dec 1977 / Mar 6 déc 1977

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AIR SERVICES

MUNICIPAL LICENSING ACT

SETTLEMENT CORPORATION

ALLOCATION OF TIME FOR PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BILLS

ORAL QUESTIONS

JOB CREATION

AUTO PACT

LAYOFF OF NICKEL WORKERS

MASSEY-FERGUSON LAYOFFS

PIPE PRODUCTION

HYDRO LOAN PROGRAM

HYDRO RATES

BRITISH AMERICAN BANK NOTE COMPANY DISPUTE

DECOR METAL PRODUCTS DISPUTE

MISCONDUCT BY POLICE

RESOURCE EQUALIZATION GRANTS

AUTOMOBILE PURCHASES

INDUSTRIAL MILK REGULATIONS

ELECTRONIC INFORMATION

EMBASSY MANAGEMENT CONTRACT

MARKING STANDARDS

CONSERVATION OF NIAGARA FOOD LAND

ORGANIZED CRIME

ROSS SHOULDICE

CANADA PENSION PLAN

OMBUDSMAN ESTIMATES

EMBASSY MANAGEMENT CONTRACT

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LICENSING OF BUSINESSES BY MUNICIPALITIES ACT

ANSWER TO WRITTEN QUESTION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FARM PRODUCTS MARKETING AMENDMENT ACT

MILK AMENDMENT ACT

AUDIT REVISION ACT

OXFORD MUNICIPAL HYDRO-ELECTRIC SERVICE ACT

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AIR SERVICES

Hon. Mr. Snow: Yesterday in Winnipeg the Canadian Transport Commission convened a hearing to consider certain applications which will have a significant effect on the future of air services in Ontario. Of the six applications before the commission, four concern Ontario directly. They are the application by Transair Limited to suspend service to Dryden, Thunder Bay, Sault Ste. Marie and Toronto; the applications by Nordair and Great Lakes Airlines Limited to serve these points and Winnipeg as well; and the application by Canadian Pacific Airlines Limited to serve Thunder Bay en route between Toronto and Winnipeg.

Ontario has a significant interest in the outcome of these applications and, accordingly, I have intervened on behalf of the government of Ontario in these proceedings. For your information, Mr. Speaker, the other two applications involve the sale of Transair Limited to Pacific Western Airlines Limited and a move by Transair Limited to add certain points in western Canada to its licences. Because neither affect Ontario directly, we have not intervened in these particular applications. However, on the other four applications, we are being represented at the Winnipeg hearings by legal counsel who offered the following prepared statement. It is as follows, and I quote:

“Before the committee proceeds to hear these applications, I would like to address a few comments to the commission to outline the basis of Ontario’s participation. As we have made clear in our intervention in the Transair application, we have no interest in the acquisition of Transair by Pacific Western Airlines, nor do we have any interest in the addition of points west of Winnipeg to Transair’s licences. Our concern in these proceedings is that service to the points in Ontario, presently served by Transair, be provided by a strong regional carrier with access to other regional points in Ontario.

“Other regions of Canada are served exclusively by a single regional air carrier. For instance, in western Canada, Pacific Western Airlines provides such a service exclusively. We believe that the travelling public in Ontario would best be served by one healthy regional air carrier operating throughout the province. At the present time, there are three air carriers providing a regional type of service in Ontario. These are Great Lakes Airlines Limited, Nordair Limited and Transair Limited. Additionally, Air Canada also serves as a regional air carrier in Ontario.

“It is obvious to us that what is required is one strong regional carrier operating in harmony with the two excellent national trunk carriers and with the feeder services, including norOntair. Such a regional carrier must have access to all key regional centres in the province, including Thunder Bay. Our reading of the recently issued Transport Canada discussion paper is that it supports the concept of a strong regional air carrier system.

“The application of Transair to suspend services to these points raises a number of questions which will have to be resolved by the Air Transport Committee. It is the responsibility of this commission to ensure that the appropriate level of service is maintained to these points. Dryden is uniquely affected by these proceedings. It is the only point affected which is not served by Air Canada in addition to Transair.

“The committee now has before it two fresh applications to assume all points in Ontario to which Transair seeks to suspend service. Effectively, the committee has before it then three possible carriers, including Transair, to provide service to these points. Air Canada has indicated its intention to increase services to all points involved except Dryden. As well, the committee has an application by Canadian Pacific Airlines to add the point Thunder Bay to its existing licences.

“Ontario has no objection to Canadian Pacific Airlines serving Thunder Bay provided that: Firstly, CP Air’s entrance into the Thunder Bay market does not preclude service to this point by the regional carrier -- a regional carrier must be able to serve Thunder Bay in order to develop a stable commercial operation; and secondly, provided that CP Air’s schedules in and out of this point are co-ordinated with those of Air Canada and the regional carrier and feeder services, including norOntair, so as to provide the travelling public with the best possible scheduling.

“In determining these applications, the commission should take into account the following considerations: Firstly, the successful carrier must be dependable and capable of providing services on a commercial basis over the long term. The determination of these applications must also take into account the economic realities of the market. We have no wish to have to go through these proceedings again because the carrier selected has been unable to provide the service required on a continuing basis.

“Secondly, the successful carrier must provide good interline connections with norOntair feeder services at all the points under examination. The route flow under consideration is regional in nature and must provide scheduling which is compatible with local services in the north not only for norOntair but with other feeder-type carriers as well.

“Thirdly, Air Canada and CP Air, if Thunder Bay is granted, must co-operate with the successful carrier or carriers. The regional carrier will be unable to operate effectively and provide a reliable service unless there is full co-operation between the successful carrier and the mainline carriers. A harmonious working relationship among Air Canada, CP Air and other carriers serving the region is vital if public needs are to be met adequately.

“Fourthly, the point Dryden must be served in a manner which will adequately meet the needs of the public travelling through that point.

“Fifthly, the successful carrier must be prepared to use appropriate equipment geared to the requirements of the market.

“As we proceed in this hearing, these will be the basic points that the government of Ontario will be concerned with. The commission must examine at least these basic points in discharging its responsibility. The committee has an arduous decision to make. It is a decision that will affect the quality and level of air services throughout northwestern Ontario for some time to come.

“These are times of significant change in the air carrier industry in Canada. These are the proposals that are being presented at this time. One regional air carrier has applied to purchase another. Transair has applied to suspend service to a large geographical area of Ontario and Canada. Other carriers have applied to take over and serve this vacated area. Discussions and debates are under way in government and industry as to the best future structure of the air carrier industry. The public is increasingly concerned with efficient and appropriate air service and its costs.

We urge the committee to take the opportunity presented by this hearing and make appropriate decisions which will ensure a better coordinated and healthy air service for Ontario.”

That was the position paper put forward on behalf of the government of Ontario in Winnipeg yesterday.

MUNICIPAL LICENSING ACT

Hon. Mr. McKeough: At the appropriate time this afternoon I will be introducing a new Act, the Municipal Licensing Act for first reading. This follows my announcement to the Provincial-Municipal Liaison Committee last April that the government intended to completely overhaul the legislative provisions for municipal licensing. It also follows the publication of a paper by the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario on this subject, a discussion paper prepared in my ministry and what I hope has been a productive period of discussion with the liaison committee and other municipal representatives.

It is my intention to have the bill widely distributed to municipalities and all other interested parties to generate as much interest and comment as possible. I will not proceed with the bill until the spring so that I can take into consideration all views that will be expressed to me.

The bill is in line with a number of general government policies. It gives municipalities a general power to license business, thereby increasing the power of municipalities to make decisions. Municipalities will no longer have to come to the province for new powers when they see a local problem in need of regulation.

We feel municipal licensing should not be used as a source of revenue, so this Act eliminates licensing fees in all but two kinds of licences. The liaison committee agreed with us on this, but opted for fees that would cover administrative costs. On this we differed. The government is saying no fees. If licensing is for the purpose of protecting the public from unfair or unsafe business practices, as it should be, then the cost should be covered by general revenues.

It is also hoped that the no-fee provision will encourage municipalities to deregulate, to licence businesses only when it is in the interests of the general public to do so. The bill eliminates archaic and unnecessary sections from the Municipal Act as part of our ongoing process of revising municipal legislation.

Mr. Sargent: And a lot of staff too.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The new legislation enables all local municipalities to license businesses. It makes no distinction between cities, towns, villages and townships. It removes all bylaw powers from police commissions and transfers them to the local council, in keeping with the principle that laws should be made by elected representatives.

Members will note I said local municipalities. This agrees with the recommendation of the clerks and treasurers and the PMLC recommendation that residual licensing power be left with local municipalities. Under the new Act, counties will not be able to pass licensing bylaws; however, we will amend the regional Acts, when the Municipal Licensing Act proceeds in the spring, to ensure that any licensing that regions are now doing continues.

There are still some problems we will have to solve before the new legislation takes effect. We have not eliminated the duplication of the provincial and municipal regulation of trades, for example. This is something I will be looking at with the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Parrott). I will also be in touch with other ministers about Acts under their aegis which affect municipal licensing to see how their provisions fit in with this new bill.

[2:15]

This legislation would come into effect a year from now, on January 1, 1979, in order to give the municipalities time to review their licensing bylaws after the legislation goes through the House in the spring. I hope at that time the municipalities will undertake a careful examination of their bylaws and eliminate those that duplicate regulation by the province or other agencies; and remove those things that can be better regulated by zoning bylaws and those that have outlived their usefulness. These steps would contribute to the process of deregulation we are committed to promote in this province.

Just adding to that briefly, this matter was discussed with my colleagues in caucus this morning and the member for London South (Mr. Walker) made a very excellent suggestion, which I think will certainly be incorporated in the bill when it is reintroduced in the spring. That suggestion would be to apply a sunset provision to municipal laws.

Mr. S. Smith: Sunset begins at home; the Treasurer is good at tightening everybody’s belt except his own.

Mr. Conway: The member for London South may soon be good enough for the cabinet.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: In this way, those bylaws which will be passed by the municipalities under the new Act when it becomes operative would then be coming up for a review, and for possible abolition I suppose, at a period, say corresponding to the life of the council, or perhaps every three or four years.

It was an excellent suggestion made by the member for London South and I can only say to my colleagues here in the House that I would expect it would be incorporated in the legislation.

Mr. S. Smith: Apply it to yourself.

Mr. Nixon: Who’s this fellow standing up here?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Can we have some order please? The Minister of Housing.

Mr. Peterson: Why should the minister be in the shadow of the Chairman of Cabinet (Mr. Henderson)?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Why should the member for London Centre be in the shadow of his leader?

Mr. Peterson: I always look up to my leader.

SETTLEMENT CORPORATION

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Last week the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Deans) asked a question of me. I would like to reply to it at this time, because it is rather lengthy and I don’t want to use the time of the question period.

The hon. member for Wentworth asked some questions regarding Settlement Corporation and the HUDAC warranty program, and suggested shoddy workmanship was responsible for the company being refused a licence by HUDAC. It is my understanding that Settlement was constructing several projects last spring, some financed by Ontario Mortgage Corporation under the HOME plan, and some financed privately with units selling up to and including $100,000, which is somewhat higher than HOME plan accommodation.

The builder got into financial difficulties in the early summer, and one of the chartered banks put in a receiver-manager under a Supreme Court order in the latter part of August. At the same time, a trustee in bankruptcy was appointed. OMC, acting as a financial lending institution in respect of three condominium corporations financed by the corporation, started a power of sale action in respect of the Berrisfield and Quinndale developments. This was done not only to protect the interests of the corporation, but to improve the living environment for the residents already living there by completing necessary work.

OMC could not proceed with another project, also involving Settlement, in the face of a court order, but it did co-operate with the receiver-manager supplying necessary documents and plans. However, since no action was apparently being taken, OMC applied to Osgoode Hall to have the order quashed. With the consent of the receiver, it was successful.

The order was quashed on Monday, November 7. OMC awarded contracts the following day and completion work began in the Berrisfield and Quinndale projects soon afterwards. On November 10, OMC officials met with representatives of the condominium corporations and their lawyers in Hamilton to explain in detail what was happening, the financial problems and outlining OMC’s plans. At the same time, these people were advised as to the steps they should take with HUDAC. For the hon. member’s information, I would be pleased to send him a copy of a special newsletter from the condominium corporations, dated November 14. I believe he would be interested in it.

There was some problem of down payments and reduced mortgage assumptions for five of the purchasers in one of the corporations. It’s my understanding that HUDAC has received formal applications and the matter is being dealt with at the present time. So the hon. member can see that his implication that Settlement was deregistered by HUDAC because of shoddy workmanship is not correct.

Mr. Deans: It should have been.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The matter centred on the company’s inability to complete work because of its financial difficulties. I am not saying that Settlement was the perfect builder. In other projects there were problems and there were meetings. It was a slow process but the deficiencies were eventually rectified.

With regard to the hon. member’s question about the Saltfleet development, I have asked my staff to review all of the housing in Saltfleet. I am aware of one company which has been instructed to clear up deficiencies, but I do not know of any others. If he has information pertaining to other builders, I would be happy if he would let me know.

As I said, when the hon. member asked about Satellite City, the HUDAC warranty covers what he referred to as cosmetic repairs in the first year of occupancy and structural repairs for five years. This applies only to units covered by the HUDAC warranty, which came into effect at the beginning of this year. We are following up on units which were constructed prior to the introduction of that warranty program.

ALLOCATION OF TIME FOR PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BILLS

Mr. S. Smith: May I rise on a point of order just before the question period, Mr. Speaker? The point of order is that I have looked over the scheduling for the remaining time of the House and I note there seems to be no provision made for any of the private members’ bills to be actually looked at within the committees to which they were sent. I guess they are all going to die on the order paper as present plans would seem to have it.

I personally feel that was not the intention of the private members’ hour. I would like to see us either stay a little longer to debate them or have the government give us some indication it might stand these bills over along with certain others I think it intends to stand over to the new session, so that at some point at least the committees would have some chance to consider these bills.

I feel very strongly about it. I don’t wish to be contentious, but I do believe it was the intention of the House that things like our party’s small business bill, the bill of the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Kennedy), another one from the member for Middlesex (Mr. Eaton), and so on, should be debated.

I wonder if the government might take into consideration the feelings of private members on both sides of the House in this regard.

I have stated my point and I can carry on with the question period now if you like, Mr. Speaker, unless the Premier (Mr. Davis) responds.

Mr. Deans: If I may speak to the point of order --

[Applause.]

Mr. Deans: I did not expect that much applause. Thank you very much.

Mr. Riddell: Let the member enjoy it while he is getting it.

Mr. Roy: Wait until he gets the leadership, then he won’t get any.

Mr. Riddell: He had better enjoy it now, because he won’t get it again.

Mr. Deans: I didn’t think you guys cared.

Mr. Kerrio: I like the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy).

Mr. Roy: That is hardly leadership dress the member for Wentworth has there.

Mr. Speaker: Can we get on with the more important business of the House?

Mr. Deans: I only wear it on the days when the member for Ottawa East is here, once every two weeks.

Mr. Roy: Where is his tie?

Mr. Mackenzie: The member for Ottawa East should go and comb his hair.

Mr. Martel: He wants to be on the record so they will know he is here.

Mr. Makarchuk: He should go and get another hairdresser.

Mr. Martel: The member for Ottawa East in on the record now. He can leave for the rest of the week.

Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, get some order here.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, speaking to the point of order, since the matter has not been dealt with by the House leaders at this point, it is a matter of concern for all of us. I want to suggest one other matter that might be considered.

Since even referring the bills to committees would not mean they would automatically receive any further consideration, it might be better if we got an agreement from the government that all of the bills that have received second reading would be put back on the order paper at the beginning of the new session in order that they could not only be considered by the appropriate committee, but they could also be given the opportunity for third reading.

Mr. S. Smith: That is what I said.

Mr. Roy: That is what he suggested.

Mr. Deans: We don’t have that understanding now. The committees that have already been structured have their workload established. It might be better that we simply get an understanding that the bills will go back on for second reading in the next session and that they will then be sent to committee in order that they could be given third reading at some appropriate time.

Mr. S. Smith: I believe that is what I said.

Mr. Deans: No it was not, because they cannot be dealt with by the committees.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think this is a matter that could very easily be discussed with the House leader. There are a number of vehicles whereby some of these bills could he further considered. It may be that some private members, on careful reflection over the recess, might want to reassess their own position as it relates to some aspects of the legislation that has been introduced; and of course there is nothing to preclude the reintroduction of the bills.

Mr. Nixon: They won’t come forward.

Mr. Martel: You’re looking bad now.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, Mr. Speaker, you know you can call it by some other name, but I would suggest that --

Mr. Conway: Does the member for Parry Sound (Mr. Maeck) agree with that?

Mr. S. Smith: Let’s stay here and discuss them then.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition wants to stay here an additional period of time to discuss the private members’ bills.

Mr. S. Smith: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That, of course, is one option that is always available to us.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Let him stay, he won’t be long anyway.

Hon. Mr. Davis: However, I would suggest that this is a matter to be discussed by the House leaders; I’m sure with their collective wisdom they will come up with a solution that is acceptable to the members of the House.

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: I think it is becoming a debate.

Mr. Eakins: I think it’s a very important one.

Mr. Speaker: We have an undertaking from the Premier that it will be discussed among the House leaders. We cannot resolve it here. It’s getting down to a debate. I’ll recognize the hon. Leader of the Opposition for a question.

Mr. Eakins: Is it back to the lottery for the members who have already submitted their bills?

Mr. Hodgson: Sit down.

Mr. Martel: Careful now.

ORAL QUESTIONS

JOB CREATION

Mr. S. Smith: My question is for the Premier: Since the number of unemployed young people has risen by 7,000 in the recent statistics during the month of November, and since the summer program which the government introduced has obviously run out; why will the Premier not now introduce a winter program similar to the one that was operated this summer, along the principles that we have suggested, supplementing the income of new employees so as to mitigate the effects of what is obviously going to be a very harsh winter of unemployment?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, we’re very pleased with the results of the program that was introduced far young people during the summer months. There is a national program, as the Leader of the Opposition well knows, and I would suggest that we await any policies that may emerge in the budget that will be forthcoming.

An hon. member: When winter’s over.

Mr. Martel: That will help them; that will really help.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is not our intention at this moment to re-introduce that program, as much as we are concerned about the employment opportunities for young people.

Mr. Wildman: No election this winter, eh?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would just say to the Leader of the Opposition, we’re aware of his point of view and --

Mr. Cassidy: Doing nothing about it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker the members opposite can say we’re doing nothing about it.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s what we said.

Mr. Swart: It’s your concern.

Mr. Laughren: That’s what you just admitted to.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s the traditional posture for the member for Ottawa Centre, and I understand that.

Mr. Samis: Do you want to tell us what you’re doing?

Mr. Cassidy: We’ll take that message across the province too.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’ll tell you, it would be a great improvement over the message you’re presently taking across the province.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The member for Ottawa Centre did that last June; all wrapped up in the same plastic bag.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary question, what specifically -- and I use the word “specifically” --

Mr. Samis: Nothing.

Mr. S. Smith: -- is the Premier recommending either to the Prime Minister of Canada or to his own cabinet, to deal with serious unemployment over this winter in Ontario? Does he have a single specific measure, or has he basically just accepted, as the budget paper seemed to do, a high level of unemployment in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Get the cameras on; they are really putting on a show.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, we have not accepted a high level of unemployment in this province. The Treasurer has made it clear, as I have on a number of occasions, that the present level of unemployment is not acceptable, and we don’t minimize it.

Mr. McClellan: What will solve it?

Mr. Wildman: Tell everybody you don’t accept it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We’ve also made it very clear that we don’t believe the answer is in massive government expenditure --

Mr. Wildman: What is the answer?

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- and development of programs, that perhaps at best are very short-term. We are maintaining our approach for limiting expenditure by government --

Mr. Samis: We’re Herbert Hoover today.

An hon. member: A chicken in every pot.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- in the anticipation, and one, I think, can --

Mr. Makarchuk: Known as public sector bashing; that is not a program.

An hon. member: He’s looking for a scapegoat.

Mr. S. Smith: Ignore that; I’d really like an answer.

Mr. Peterson: Just stand there and evince concern.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I’m delighted to have these interjections in the recognition --

Mr. Samis: You have nothing else to say.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- that to solve this problem on a more lasting basis, it does require, on the part of all governments, a degree of intestinal fortitude that is not always easy to demonstrate.

Mr. Makarchuk: How about some cerebral fortitude?

[2:30]

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’ve said in this House before, Mr. Speaker, it would be much easier for this government to say yes to a lot of, I should say constructive, suggestions that are made; and I don’t minimize those. It would be a lot easier for us to say, “Yes, let’s increase the deficit, or in some way expend further taxpayers’ money.”

Mr. Wildman: Have you anything specific?

Hon. Mr. Davis: But, Mr. Speaker, we do not believe that on a provincial basis, alone in particular, this will provide any worthwhile answer.

There will be two or three matters that I will be bringing to the attention of the Prime Minister and the other first ministers, on the assumption there is a conference on the economy of this country in February; and it’s my expectation, now that Mr. Levesque has indicated he will participate in such a conference, that the Prime Minister will announce the convening of this meeting sometime this week. That’s just a guess.

Mr. S. Smith: Hurray, hurray. What good will that do?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition can say hurray, hurray in a very cynical way. If he doesn’t want such a conference; if he doesn’t think there is some leadership necessary --

Mr. Samis: The answer is no; you have nothing specific.

Mr. S. Smith: What proposals will you offer at the meeting?

Mr. S. Smith: So what are you doing?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, we’re concerned, but I’m not going to lead the members of the House astray and say we have a large number of short-term programs up our sleeves; that, in our view, would not deal realistically with the problems we face.

Mr. S. Smith: Only to learn that you can’t run this province economically.

Mr. Conway: The Charter is not a bad start.

Mr. Lewis: While I’m sure the Premier realizes the seasonally-adjusted rate of unemployment and number of unemployed in Ontario this month is the same as last, does he also realize that between October and November, 1977, there was the single most dramatic drop in the last year in the number of people actually working? Does he not realize we are some 25,000 jobs down amongst the people actually employed? And does he not, therefore, recognize that some job creation initiative must be undertaken by his government to take effect in the coming winter months?

It is not enough, surely, to talk about his intestinal fortitude; what is the Premier going to do about the fortitude of the people who are not working?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, we’re concerned about the people who cannot find employment, I don’t minimize that; that concern is not a market cornered by the members opposite. I think the leader of the New Democratic Party, perhaps with greater sensitivity than the Leader of the Opposition, recognizes that we have this same concern.

Mr. Lewis: Then do something.

Mr. Peterson: You’re too cheap.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It may be, but I’ll not pursue that any further.

Mr. Lewis: I don’t blame you.

Mr. Sargent: That is pretty shaggy.

Mr. Lewis: It is not productive.

Mr. Conway: That’s not very gracious.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would say to the leader of the New Democratic Party --

Mr. Lewis: On this there is no bridge across the chasm between us. I say to the Premier, through you Mr. Speaker, do something about job creation. I can stimulate the Premier into abuse very easily. It is about time members on that side over there stopped posturing about jobs.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’m not looking for any bridge, and I’ve got to tell the member at this moment that in answer --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. member for Grey-Bruce has a supplementary.

Mr. Sargent: The headlines in today’s Toronto Star were: “The Worst Unemployment Since the Great Depression.” Accepting the fact that the meeting of the first ministers --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Talk to Trudeau.

Mr. Sargent: -- with Trudeau is a decision day to decide the route we’re going to take in Ontario in dealing with 300,000 unemployed people; and realizing that the Premier is locked in financially, with an upcoming billion and a half deficit, and that he has absolutely no programs in place at all to provide jobs; I ask the Premier as a supplementary, will he in view of this upcoming meeting, appoint an all-party committee, based on a make-work project as was the federal program in 1963 when they had seven per cent unemployment?

They put it through with your co-operation here and it brought it down to three per cent. I will send you the facts of this now, sir, and I would ask you seriously to look at an all-party program to put Ontario back on track.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the suggestion from the member for Grey-Bruce. I really can’t say that I think that an all-party committee to assist us in the discussions in February would necessarily be the most helpful route to go.

Mr. Makarchuk: Not as good as your budget in April.

Hon. Mr. Davis: While I appreciate the suggestion, I would have to say to the hon. member that I really haven’t considered that and I doubt that sort of thing would emerge.

I would also point out that while we are concerned about the figures, if you analyse them carefully they also demonstrate something else, and if you look at the headlines in today’s Star, I am not disputing them. The headlines do reflect the national picture. I don’t say that Ontario is that much better than the other provinces of Canada, but I think it is somewhat better than the majority.

Mr. McClellan: You are Herbert Hoover.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think the figures will also show -- and it has been no mean accomplishment -- that over a year ago there have been 100,000 new jobs created in this province and the figures there show that.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: One hundred and thirty-seven thousand.

Mr. Foulds: That is like two trees planted for every one that has been cut.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Hamilton West with his second question. We have spent 10 minutes on this one.

Mr. Peterson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, there have only been two supplementaries to this very important problem.

Mr. Speaker: There have been three supplementaries and they have all been lengthy.

Mr. Peterson: They should have been cut down.

AUTO PACT

Mr. S. Smith: Another question for the Premier on a related topic: Is he aware of the increase of $265 million in Canada’s auto trade deficit with the United States, bringing the total to close to $1 billion in a 10-month period? Can he tell us whether he plans now to call together the automobile industry, the auto parts industry and the labour unions that are involved to formulate an Ontario strategy regarding the auto trade matter, and then to make that particular strategy public and take it before the meeting that he’s talking about with the Prime Minister, which is going to occur in the near future?

Why can’t Ontario take a public position about the auto trade which is so important to our own future economically?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, that of course has already been done.

Mr. McClellan: Don’t be too sure.

Mr. S. Smith: May I ask what did the Premier recommend to the Prime Minister of Canada during his discussion with him with regard to the auto pact, in specific terms?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Doesn’t he talk to you, Stuart?

Hon. Mr. Davis: To put it in its most simplistic fashion, so that it will be understood, we suggested to the Prime Minister in terms that he understood -- not only did he understand them, he understood why I was suggesting it, very simplistically -- we want to see more of the automobile production and the parts manufacturing done in the province of Ontario. That, in its simplest terms, is what was suggested to the Prime Minister and that, in essence, is really what it’s all about.

Mr. S. Smith: How is the government going to deal with the companies to make sure they shift production here?

Mr. Cassidy: Is the Premier aware of any co-operation from the automobile companies and the auto parts manufacturers in this regard? If so, is the Premier satisfied with that co-operation? If not, what is the Premier going to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would say the auto parts manufacturers are totally co-operative, and that’s a very important part of the industry. They want to see more, naturally. I can’t quite understand the question. The automotive parts manufacturers have made their views known publicly in this province. They want to see more of that work done by Canadian manufacturers. We have accepted this. Not only have we accepted it, we have encouraged it.

Mr. Cassidy: You answered only half the question.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I wonder why the Premier is making that magnificent gesture to save what we already know has to be saved. Would he tell the House what he is doing to save the production facilities that we now have, the jobs that are presently there? Given that we have already had layoffs at Ford in Oakville and that there is soon to be another coming from my loving and caring multi-national in Oshawa and another one in Windsor, will he tell the House what plans he has to see that those jobs in production are retained?

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- that in their negotiations with the government of the United States a greater recognition is given to the need for -- and the economic pluses -- in having more of the work done in this province. I don’t have any other way of expressing it to the member.

Mr. Breaugh: You don’t care about losing those jobs.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It has been well stated; it has been documented; they understand it; and I think that as far as certain ministries are concerned in Ottawa they are in agreement with it.

Mr. Swart: Just speaking in generalities.

LAYOFF OF NICKEL WORKERS

Mr. Lewis: A new question of the Premier: What happened to the Falconbridge statement?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have certain information with respect to Falconbridge that is approximately two weeks and six days old. Rather than discuss that information -- which I think is relatively public but I am not sure of that -- with members of the House, the chairman of the board and other officials of Falconbridge are meeting with ministers and officials of this government this afternoon.

I expect to be meeting with the chairman of Falconbridge myself tomorrow. I wanted to meet with him prior to any discussions on Thursday and rather than get into a discussion on information that may not be as up to date as information we will get this afternoon, I would ask the leader of the New Democratic Party to await the information that we get in those discussions so that we will he dealing on a factual basis, rather than in figures that may or may not be accurate.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, can the Premier understand the frustration that necessarily exists among members opposite if on Thursday we are presented with another fait accompli equivalent to what occurred with Inco, without any opportunity to get some advance glimmering? Is the Premier saying that because his cabinet ministers are meeting with Falconbridge today and the Premier himself is meeting with the chairman of the board tomorrow some kind of layoff, whether all at one point in time or phased over time, is coming from Falconbridge? If so, is there some way we in the Legislature can prepare for it, perhaps by bringing Falconbridge before the select committee, as well as Inco?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think the hon. leader of the New Democratic Party is really very familiar with the existing situation. There was an announcement made last August or September; the plant was shut down for a month, two weeks or whatever period of time, and certain figures were used in those discussions. I can’t yet give the leader of the New Democratic Party any information that is different from those figures. I don’t want in any way to mislead the House by suggesting that those figures may still be the same today because they may not be. I honestly don’t know and will not know.

If the leader of the New Democratic Party feels that things might turn out to be somewhat different from the situation in September and October -- and our latest information was more recent than that, and I don’t want to prejudge the information we get -- I would be prepared to consider his suggestion. I don’t want a lot of speculation; I don’t think it helps, until we have the latest views and position of Falconbridge. We will not know that until late this afternoon or perhaps even tomorrow morning.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary: Could the Premier tell us who sought the meetings and why they are being held specifically at this time?

[2:45]

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can’t say who sought the meetings. I can only say the meeting that is taking place this afternoon had been arranged prior to the question being raised by the member’s leader yesterday. There have been discussions. The leader of the NDP asked me some two or three weeks ago to check into the potential of Falconbridge and what might emerge, and that has been done.

I would point out to the hon. member that unfortunately -- or fortunately; who knows? -- nothing remains static. What a position may have been a month ago could change, plus or minus, today in that particular industry. I am very reluctant to get into any further discussion that could be based on information that turns out to be non-factual.

This is not a point of order, Mr. Speaker, but there was a report in the evening paper that out of the Premier’s office the figure of 1,000 had emerged. I want to assure hon. members of the House that we have had no such figure. I really don’t know where that figure came from. I just want to assure members that I have no knowledge at this moment of any figures other than those that have already been publicly discussed. They are, I think, quite familiar to the members opposite.

MASSEY-FERGUSON LAYOFFS

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Minister of Labour: Is the minister aware of the layoffs now under way at Massey-Ferguson? I believe 80 workers were given notice and more layoffs are possibly pending. Has the ministry been notified?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary: May I ask the minister, were the workers involved given adequate notification under the Employment Standards Act? Does the minister have any indication of the extent of future layoffs at Massey-Ferguson? What the devil are we going to do in this province with the repetitive succession of layoffs from Sudbury to Oakville to Massey-Ferguson to Niagara-on-the-Lake? They never end and this government won’t create jobs.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Nonsense.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, it would seem to me -- to answer the second portion of the hon. leader of the third party’s question -- the thing that we must do is to create the climate in the province of Ontario which will encourage investment.

Mr. Swart: You did that 50 years ago.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I would think that the climate has to continue to be encouraged and created --

Mr. Swart: Great Depression philosophy.

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- which has been present in this province for so many years --

Mr. Warner: It would create a better climate if you resigned.

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- in which it has led the country in terms of employment, in terms of worker benefits and in terms of the kinds of remuneration which workers get.

I think we should make a strong plea that all of those who have any extra money at all -- including all pension funds, such as union pension funds -- should consider the possibility of investing those funds in Canadian-owned industries. This certainly would encourage the development of new jobs.

Mr. Deans: Where are they going to put it?

Mr. Lewis: Falconbridge? In Inco?

Mr. Warner: Hot air.

Mr. Lewis: So it goes into Indonesia?

Hon. B. Stephenson: That’s only one of the ways in which we might encourage new jobs.

In answer to the hon. leader of the third party’s first question, I would say that to my knowledge, indeed Massey-Ferguson did comply with the Employment Standards Act.

Mr. Lewis: How extensive will the layoffs be?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I will get the statute.

Mr. Peterson: Supplementary: A question on the minister’s response about the suggestion that pension funds should be going into investments here. Does the minister take that same view with the public pension plans that the province controls? Does she feel that money should be going into private enterprise as well, to encourage investment in this province, rather than spending it on government deficits?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I’m not sure that that is a reasonable sequitur to the suggestion I was making.

Mr. Sargent: No, it sure as hell isn’t.

Mr. Lewis: No more unreasonable than your nonsense.

Hon. B. Stephenson: The suggestion I was making was that each one of us --

Mr. Breithaupt: Like a government.

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- as individuals and each one of us who belongs to any kind of association with a pension plan should, I think, be interested in encouraging the development of industry in this country --

Mr. Nixon: That’s right -- help finance the government deficit.

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- not only for our future, but for the future of all of the other people --

Mr. Roy: You should talk to Darcy.

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- who are living here and for those who will come after us.

Mr. Germa: Supplementary: Is the minister not aware that some of the pressure could be alleviated if certain tradesmen could go to the tar sands? Because of the lack of a reciprocal agreement between the provinces of Ontario and Alberta, say in the case of stationary engineers, these people are precluded from taking jobs in the Alberta tar sands. Why doesn’t this province enter into reciprocal agreements so that our certificates are recognized in Alberta and vice versa?

Mr. Makarchuk: And Quebec.

Hon. B. Stephenson: It would be, I think, very easy for the trade unions involved to develop the kind of reciprocal arrangements which could facilitate this --

Mr. Deans: That is not helpful.

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- because exactly the opposite thing was happening. The obverse of that was happening not very long ago when Alberta workers who wished to come to Ontario were not admitted because the Ontario unions would not accept them. There is room for a great deal more co-operation in this country in all areas.

PIPE PRODUCTION

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Premier. Prompted by the problem that presented itself with the layoffs at Inco, I questioned the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Bennett) and the Premier regarding the manufacture of the pipe for the Alaska Highway pipeline. It has taken three weeks for the Minister of Industry and Tourism to come to the conclusion that we can make it. Now all we have left to do is sell it.

That prompts me to ask the second question. Is the Premier aware that federal funds are being considered to build a stainless steel plant in Cuba -- this question was raised by the third party last week -- and that up to date that money has been stopped because of a question raised in the federal House by the federal member for Welland, Dr. Railton?

Is the Premier concerned that we might have federal funds going to Cuba to build a steel plant in direct competition with a plant in Welland, Ontario, one of the largest stainless steel producers, which, incidentally, uses quite a large nickel content in its manufacture of stainless steel? Would the first minister, when he meets with those other ministers and the first minister of Canada, make that position known, that we are gravely concerned with the climate as it exists as to retaining the jobs that we have?

An hon. member: Speech.

Mr. Kerrio: I think it’s a good one, don’t you?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to understand the question.

Mr. Breaugh: Was it not simple enough for you, Bill?

Mr. Mancini: Rebates on cars.

Hon. Mr. Davis: To the member for Niagara Falls’ question, “Am I concerned about the retention of jobs here in this province?” my answer is very simple, “Yes.”

Mr. S. Smith: Are you asking anything on the Cuba matter?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Not only am I concerned about their retention, I am concerned about the expansion of job opportunities in this province. If the member looks at the figures today, if he sees what in fact has been accomplished, he will see that this province, almost including Alberta now, has been more successful than any other province in Canada in the creation of new jobs, even during a rather difficult economic year.

Mr. Kerrio: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Would the Premier consider it reasonable to ask the assurance of the federal government to let us know in this province of Ontario when federal money might be extended to go in direct competition with corporations and businesses within the province of Ontario? Does he think that would be unreasonable?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Find everything we are doing wrong to ask questions about. This is the third question.

Mr. Kerrio: Are you interested in jobs?

Interjections.

Mr. Kerrio: Are you really interested?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: This is Ontario, it isn’t Canada.

Mr. Kerrio: That’s right, and I am here to protect it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the Premier have a response?

Mr. Kerrio: Yes.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: What nonsense. What nonsense.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will raise with the Prime Minister of Canada those matters that are of economic concern to the people of Ontario. Yes, that I shall do.

The question of their broader foreign policy, Mr. Speaker, I really think is a matter that I am not capable of debating here in this House and is something that has to be dealt with in the nation’s capital, not here.

Mr. S. Smith: It’s never stopped you before.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We don’t employ ambassadors to Cuba. We don’t have diplomatic relations with other countries of the world.

Mr. Sargent: Maybe you need some help.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Actually that is a matter of federal responsibility; it is not ours.

An hon. member: What about the US auto pact?

An hon. member: Bert Lawrence hasn’t volunteered?

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, can the Premier say when the province intends to have an industrial strategy, so that we have a clear lead to the development of our industry which goes beyond the ranting and the raving of the provincial Treasurer, and will prevent our simply reacting to single initiatives by the federal government?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the very distinguished member of consumer and corporate affairs of course states the obvious answer that he has to all of our economic problems, I am sure it is a message he is taking right across the province and we won’t labour it here today. Do we have an industrial strategy --

Mr. Breaugh: No. No.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- within the context of a provincial response? The answer to that is yes.

Mr. Martel: What is it?

Mr. Breaugh: Nonsense.

Mr. S. Smith: Wait and see.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Is there a national industrial strategy? The answer to that is no --

Mr. Mackenzie: Pass the buck.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Hopefully, it is now being understood.

Mr. Sargent: How about plans for Ontario?

Mr. Mackenzie: How long can you pass the buck?

HYDRO LOAN PROGRAM

Mr. G. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A new question to the Treasurer.

An hon. member: Another set up.

Mr. G. Taylor: Since the Treasurer answers the questions from this side of the House with such exuberance and zeal --

Mr. Conway: He wants another television performance.

An hon. member: Exuberance and zeal, that’s what you cover mushrooms with. He’s paying attention now.

Mr. C. Taylor: -- is Ontario Hydro going to borrow in New York and if so, could he supply us with any facts he has at this time as to the borrowing of Ontario Hydro in the New York bond markets?

Mr. Conway: Hydro is out of control and the Treasurer knows it.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the member’s question, Ontario, on behalf of Ontario Hydro, registered in New York at the end of last week for a loan of $250 million which will be received in 1978. As their 1977 borrowing program has been completed for some time, this will be the first step in their 1978 borrowing program. But I am glad the member asked the question, perhaps there’s something here I just might put on the record.

An hon. member: You just happen to have the answer.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, he’s out of order. He’s out of order. Cut him off, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Germa: That’s an abuse of the question period.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, in connection with the registering, it is interesting to note --

Mr. Conway: No wonder the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) doesn’t bother to come.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- that yesterday it was announced that Standard and Poor’s Corporation had given a triple-A rating --

An hon. member: I picked it right out of the air.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- to the bond offering of the province of Ontario.

An hon. member: That’s not an answer.

An hon. member: Tell them about your triple-As.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members will share my pride --

Mr. Sargent: So you are closing hospitals.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- with these words, Standard and Poor’s noted that good balance has been maintained between current revenues and operating expenses, despite growth of total borrowing requirements --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- for capital programs. Public sector debt per capita is among the lowest in Canada when compared with personal income and debt service levels are similarly moderate, the rating agency said.

Mr. Mackenzie: What about jobs? What about jobs?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members on both sides are proud of what we have achieved in this province under the leadership of the Premier.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet -- really it’s a point of order. I want to correct something that the Premier said.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, he is just getting started.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The Premier said -- the members don’t want to hear this, do they? They really don’t want to hear it --

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order? He is just getting started. For God’s sake, stop him now.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: What is your point of order?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that I want to correct the Premier, who said we had created 100,000 new jobs in the last year.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The fact is 137,000 jobs have been created in this province in one year’s time.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions? The hon. member for Grey.

Mr. Nixon: There is no sense Roy coming back now.

Mr. Makarchuk: Your hands must be sore.

Mr. McKessock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question --

Mr. Speaker: No supplementary to that.

Mr. McKessock: I have a question of the Minister of Energy.

Mr. Sargent: Such arrogance.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am so modest.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: What has got into this House this afternoon? Do you want a half an hour recess because that is what I will give you? Now let’s have some order.

[3:00]

HYDRO RATES

Mr. McKessock: I have a question for the Minister of Energy. In view of the fact that rural users of hydro are charged considerably more per kilowatt hour than urban people, in some cases 50 per cent more, and in view of the fact that a lot of this power that is coming to the cities is travelling across farmland and rural communities by way of unwanted Hydro corridors, does the minister not feel it is time everyone pays a similar rate for hydro in Ontario the same as they do in most other provinces across Canada?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: For the information of the member, I have a concern -- I may say a very deep concern -- in connection with power costing and pricing in this province. For that reason, I referred this whole issue to the Ontario Energy Board to review. Submissions have been made and are being made to that board.

There is no doubt in my mind there are discrepancies. I do not wish to comment however until I receive that report from the Energy Board.

Mr. McKessock: Supplementary: In view of the fact that his colleague, the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) looks at things in a different light to that which the Minister of Energy and Hydro do, because he cuts costs to those in the north who have added costs, such as for car licences, while the Minister of Energy is not even giving rural users of hydro equal charges but is charging them more, would this minister mind having a talk with the Minister of Transportation and Communications on policy for distribution of charges?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: I would suggest to the member there are communities in northern Ontario which are actually being subsidized in some way in terms of their hydro consumption. If he would like to pursue that matter with me further, I would be delighted. As the member knows, we also have a northern electrification program dealing with small communities. If he would like to pursue the costing and the pricing in connection with those communities, I would be delighted to pursue that as well in order to illustrate to him that it is certainly not a matter of the northern communities being discriminated against.

BRITISH AMERICAN BANK NOTE COMPANY DISPUTE

Ms. Gigantes: I have a question for the Minister of Labour concerning the dispute between the Steel Plate Examiners local and the British American Bank Note Company in Ottawa. Has the minister reviewed the report of the mediator and is she now prepared to see that the Employment Standards Act is interpreted to mean women engaged in work of similar skill or higher skill within a firm should be entitled, at the very least, to the same levels of pay as their male coworkers?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I have reviewed the report of the mediator in this case and it is obvious to me from the preliminary report that the problem is one of equal pay for work of equal value rather than equal pay for equal work. Unfortunately, we do not have any legislation in this country --

Mr. Laughren: The minister uses that when it suits her purpose.

Mr. Wildman: When is she going to introduce it?

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- to cover the concept of equal pay for work of equal value. It is being examined very carefully.

Mr. Roy: What is the minister waiting for?

Mr. Germa: Why does this government hate women?

Hon. B. Stephenson: A conference is being arranged which will be --

Mr. Lewis: Another one? There have been about 10 already.

Hon. B. Stephenson: No, we have not had 10. We have had no conferences on equal pay for work of equal value and will not until January of next year.

Mr. Lewis: Endless conferences.

Mr. Mackenzie: Government by conference.

Hon. B. Stephenson: At this time, I am happy to say there have been contacts between the mediator and both parties yesterday and today. It is my understanding that tomorrow the parties will be meeting without the mediator. I think there is some hope there may be a settlement here.

Ms. Gigantes: They are meeting all the time.

Hon. B. Stephenson: When there is a settlement, we shall be very pleased to carry out the complete investigation which is necessary in order to ensure that the very fine letter of the law is not in any way being avoided by this company.

Ms. Gigantes: Supplementary: Is the minister saying she is satisfied to see a situation where management can refuse to budge when what is being offered in terms of willingness to provide their labour by these women is a two-year program to bring them up with their high skills to the level of pay of a new male employee who sweeps floors?

Hon. B. Stephenson: That is not what I am saying.

Ms. Gigantes: What is she saying?

Mr. Cassidy: It is a blaring, blatant injustice.

DECOR METAL PRODUCTS DISPUTE

Mr. G. E. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour: What is the involvement of the minister or her staff in the strike of the employees at Decor Metal Products in Midland, which is the largest employer in the area? This strike, if it continues, will have a devastating effect on the economy in the area.

Mr. Mackenzie: Set up another commission of inquiry.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the mediation-conciliation branch has been involved in attempting to arrange meetings between the two parties to this dispute. It is my understanding that although they have not been successful as yet, it looks as though there will be a meeting arranged within the very near future.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Solicitor General has the answer to a question previously asked.

MISCONDUCT BY POLICE

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. Last Thursday, the member for York Centre asked me if I’d seen a letter circulated among a number of lawyers concerning possible misconduct by members of the York regional police force. The member inquired if I would send a representative of this ministry to a meeting which was planned to discuss the matter.

Since that time, I have received a letter from the president of the York North Law Association indicating that the meeting is to be held in private and that discussions are to be confidential. I therefore do not plan to have a ministry representative attend the meeting.

RESOURCE EQUALIZATION GRANTS

Mr. Bradley: A question for the Treasurer, Mr. Speaker: Last week I asked the Treasurer if he was prepared to convene a meeting of the mayors of those municipalities who feel they are adversely affected by the resource equalization grant from the province, and the minister replied he was not.

Mr. Swart: Why don’t you vote for equalization?

Mr. Bradley: Would the minister then be prepared to meet with these municipalities or representatives of these municipalities if they were to request such a meeting, either as a group or individually?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Obviously, if they request it. Certainly.

Mr. Bradley: And would the minister be prepared to provide any data that they would ask to confirm their particular statistics? For instance, his ministry may have statistics that would either confirm their contentions, or suggest that their contentions were not correct.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I think they have the data now, Mr. Speaker, but if there is something else they need, yes.

Ms. Conway: You’re a lamb to be quiet on that regard.

Mr. O’Neil: You’re no fun like that, Darc.

AUTOMOBILE PURCHASES

Ms. Bryden: I have a question for the Chairman of Management Board. About 10 days ago, I asked the Chairman of Management Board if he was planning to revise the request-to-purchase form in the manual of administration relating to the kinds of automobiles and options which the government buys for ministers and deputy ministers.

He replied, “We’re always looking at items in the manual of administration.” I would like to ask the Chairman of Management Board specifically, if he is in favour of using taxpayers’ money to purchase such luxury items as AM-FM stereo radios, air conditioning, electric clocks and six-way power bucket seats, all of which are on the list of 23 options available to ministers and deputy ministers?

Mr. Riddell: Shame.

Mr. Peterson: Don’t get excited now, Jimmy.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, obviously since they’re in the manual of administration, I must be in favour of them.

Ms. Bryden: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Could the Chairman of Management Board inform us which of the 23 options were requested by the Minister of Industry and Tourism to bring his car purchase up to $9,749?

An hon. member: All of them.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I think that question should be asked of the minister responsible, the minister who has the vehicle. I can find out; he can tell you a lot faster.

Mr. Breaugh: Did he get the baby loveseat option?

Mr. Breithaupt: Is he buying it?

An hon. member: Is that a reclining seat?

Mr. Roy: May I ask a supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: No, the hon. member for Wentworth North was going to ask one.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Chairman of Management Board would indicate to us the rationale for deputy ministers who are compensated in excess of $40,000 a year having government-supplied cars?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Forty?

Hon. W. Newman: Forty?

Hon. Mr. Davis: They’re ahead of us.

Mr. Reid: Everybody is ahead of you.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Not in committee meetings.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Deputy ministers are entitled to a vehicle as part of the perquisites of office because they use them in their business.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Same as opposition leaders.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Those who use them for personal purposes pay a fixed sum -- I think it’s $55 per month --

Mr. Kerrio: Two dollars a month.

Hon. Mr. Auld: -- plus the income tax requirement -- I can’t think of the exact phrase -- where they are being supplied a company vehicle.

INDUSTRIAL MILK REGULATIONS

Mr. Wiseman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. In view of the fact that many milk shippers in eastern Ontario have run out of industrial milk quota, has the minister or members of his staff been talking with Mr. Whelan, his federal counterpart, with a view to assisting those farmers? And has any consideration been given to a ceiling on the amount of industrial milk, say half a million pounds per farmer? I think that is necessary in this area --

Mr. Riddell: Tell him to read Hansard, Bill.

Mr. Wiseman: -- particularly for the farmers in eastern Ontario.

Mr. Conway: It’s a terribly deficient government policy.

Mr. Nixon: Let’s put this on Gene Whelan if we can.

Mr. Speaker: Can we have some order, please?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: He’s trying to get into the hall of fame.

Hon. W. Newman: I could, but I won’t.

Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question from the hon. member regarding the MSQ, or industrial quota here in Ontario, it has reached very serious proportions. Many farmers have already shipped their total allocation for the dairy year, which ends March 31. I have pointed out that we have farmers in the province who have milk to ship and plants which want it but we don’t have any quota to give them. What I’m doing right now is having an in-depth cost-benefit analysis done of the total provincial milk situation as far as industrial milk is concerned.

I have not talked to Mr. Whelan specifically about upper limits, but I have told him how to solve the problem as far as this province is concerned. I think it will be very unpalatable for him, but I did make it very clear to him last Tuesday night how to solve our problem.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Grey.

Mr. Nixon: Was that the OMA? I heard you did very well there.

Mr. McKessock: A supplementary: The minister has said that he has told Mr. Whelan how to correct the situation in Ontario. Would he mind providing that information to the House?

Hon. W. Newman: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. In Ontario we have processors who do not have enough milk at this point in time to supply the demands or the market they have for their commodities. They are bringing in milk from other areas; and that is happening not only in eastern Ontario but throughout the whole province. What I’m saying, in effect, is that we should be allowed more MSQ or more industrial base for this province so we can meet the demands of the consumers and the processors of this province.

ELECTRONIC INFORMATION

Mr. Conway: My question is of the Minister of Government Services. Since his ministry seems to have general supervisory control over the electronic data processing facilities available to the government of Ontario in general, would the minister care to share with this House what, if any, precautions or guidelines there are with respect to protecting the security of the information stored within any particular part of that system?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, I couldn’t give the member a complete answer to that, so I will get it for him.

Mr. Conway: A supplementary: In preparation of the minister’s answer, I wonder whether or not he might look to see whether, prior to recent developments, there has ever been any provision whereby people who are very closely involved with the most sensitive part of that system are required to undergo any security check? Could he investigate that as well?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Maybe the member would tell me how one gives a person a security check, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: The minister said he was going to take it as notice. The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain.

Mr. Sargent: I have a supplementary question on this.

Mr. Speaker: No.

Mr. Sargent: Why not?

Mr. Speaker: I think there have been enough supplementaries, that’s why not.

EMBASSY MANAGEMENT CONTRACT

Mr. Charlton: I have a question of the Minister of Government Services with respect to a matter which I raised with him in the estimates of his ministry regarding Embassy Management Limited of Brampton.

If I were to provide him with details of two executions against Embassy Management Limited in 1977, both involving suits brought against them by subcontractors for nonpayment for work performed on two separate government contracts, will the minister take this as, and I quote his deputy minister, “evidence of Embassy’s bad payment record”; so that his ministry, and I quote the deputy minister again, “may be able to take some action”? And will the minister give us a guarantee that this action comes in the form of no further contracts being awarded to Embassy Management Limited of Brampton by his ministry?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, there are an awful lot of questions in one there. We are aware of the problems with Embassy Management

Mr. Kerrio: Take them one at a time.

Hon. Mr. McCague: We do not, in the opinion of the officials of my ministry, now have the right to deny a contract to Embassy.

Mr. Martel: Kick them in the head then.

Mr. Laughren: Say no.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: How do they get out of debt without working?

[3:15]

Hon. Mr. McCague: I would be pleased to have the information the member has. I will examine it and get an answer to him but I would say that --

Mr. Warner: Wishy-washy.

Hon. Mr. McCague: It is not wishy-washy at all. Legally we can’t deny him a contract and the member knows it.

Mr. Warner: You have been here too long, you should resign.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a supplementary?

Mr. Charlton: I will get the minister copies of those executions. Given the fact that the information has been brought to the attention of the minister and the deputy minister by Mr. Dave Haggard, proprietor of H Construction; Mr. Paul Little, representative of John Wheelwright Construction; Mr. Lionel Knight of Knight’s Construction; Mr.

Lawrence Desrochier from Desrochier’s Roofing; and Celeste Como of Como and Calabro Excavating, at a meeting in the deputy minister’s office on October 21, 1977, at which time the name of several other subcontractors were given who are in the same boat, would it not now behove the minister to request his colleague the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Grossman) to launch a full scale investigation under the Business Practices Act into the manner in which Embassy Management Limited of Brampton and its sister company, Lamco Services Company, have been carrying on business?

Mr. Warner: Maybe you can solve this one; you blew beer in the ball parks.

Mr. Martel: Come on, answer the question, George.

Mr. Warner: No answer.

Mr. McClellan: Let the record show no answer.

MARKING STANDARDS

Mr. Reid: I have a question for the Minister of Education: Has the minister read the

article in the Globe and Mail this morning regarding the marking standards in the province of Ontario; and doesn’t he think that it’s time the Ministry of Education brought back some kind of standard in marking across the province so that students particularly, but also teachers, in the various educational institutions, would have a bench-mark to which they can relate the marks of all students?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I glanced just quickly at the

article --

Mr. Conway: Just glanced?

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- and I haven’t had an opportunity, as I have been in a meeting all morning, to read it in detail. But let me say this:

First of all, what I saw indicated that our ministry had no records on what marks in fact were given in the various schools. That of course is not so. We know the marks that were given to every student in every subject in every school, and we do have comparative figures that we can lay our hands on.

Second, we did do a very elaborate interface study, as my friend knows, and it was made available to everyone a year ago when this subject was approached very thoroughly. In fact the conclusions in the interface study were rather different from the general conclusions that someone like the writer makes quickly, without having the benefit of all the research the people who did the interface study had.

Mr. Reid: That is not in fact so.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The actual facts the interface study brought out were that the difference in marks between schools was not as great as some people imagined --

Mr. Reid: It varied; 13 and 20 per cent.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- and the second conclusion was that the marks given today by teachers in the secondary schools are probably just as good an indicator, and can be used in that manner, of success or failure in university, as the grade 13 exam marks were.

The only place where you get into some particular problem is in those courses where there is very fierce competition for admission. It may be in those courses there is some chance students may have a little tougher time depending on the school they come from.

The hon. member asked what have we done about it? Ever since that interface report was brought out, we have had various committees looking at it. We are coming forward with some recommendations that will help in this matter.

A year ago, I put to all the secondary school headmasters of this province the very premise that is outlined in that

article today: “Is there a problem? Is there a difference between grade 13 marks in this province? If so, you are the people who should be most concerned about doing something about it; what do you recommend?” I am waiting for them to bring back some recommendation.

Mr. Reid: Supplementary, if I may, Mr. Speaker: In view of the fact that some university professors have said some of their students are almost functionally illiterate; would the minister consider something that I think was tried in the state of Florida, called a “lifestyles program” or test, in all the high schools in the province, to measure whether the students in fact can reach, or have attained a certain level of maturity in their educational process in lifestyles, such as the Florida experiment sought to establish?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I suggest to my friend that he look a little further and little more closely into the Florida experiment to decide whether he thinks --

Mr. Reid: I will do it in January.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- that the kind of program they have introduced may mean that a third to nearly a half of the students will be denied their secondary school graduation, and that the groups of students who will be denied will be from the very areas that should be given help, rather than some kind of barrier set in front of them which will probably prevent them from getting full employment.

Mr. S. Smith: A phoney graduation certificate doesn’t help, you know.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Secondly, I know we hear from these so-called academics in universities all the time, but I get a little sick and tired listening to them talk.

Mr. Lewis: Hear, hear, absolutely.

Hon. Mr. Wells: This professor writes about the differences in marks in the various secondary schools in this province. What about the differences in marks between the University of Western Ontario and Brock University? Or Queen’s University?

Mr. Reid: Well, that doesn’t make it right.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I am not saying that it makes it right, I am just saying that perhaps there is nothing wrong with having the situation the way it is.

Mr. Lewis: Those university tests are bogus and stupid. They tell nothing; they’re utterly ridiculous.

CONSERVATION OF NIAGARA FOOD LAND

Mr. Swart: A question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food, if I may: In view of the minister’s sometimes expressed desire to save the prime food land, and because the Niagara regional council is soon to decide on the location of its new headquarters, has the minister advised the council of the region of Niagara to locate such headquarters well away from the fruit and grape land?

Hon. W. Newman: I had the occasion and the privilege to meet with some people from the Niagara regional council to discuss many matters -- I believe it was only yesterday.

Mr. Swart: May I inform the minister that the location has been narrowed down to three sites, all of them in communities on unique food lands; that the region of Niagara has 1,900 employees; and that this will create tremendous pressures on the surrounding food lands. Will the minister interest himself in the matter and prevent more of Niagara’s best land from being taken up through this measure?

Hon. W. Newman: I think a decision was made on the location of the regional headquarters some time ago. The Minister of Housing (Mr. Rhodes) and I were both involved in that. Those decisions were made regarding the preservation of the unique, tender fruit lands of the Niagara Peninsula.

Hon. Mr. Welch: What’s wrong with downtown St. Catharines?

ORGANIZED CRIME

Mr. Stung: A question of the Solicitor General, concerning organized crime: During his estimates in the House the minister undertook to obtain certain figures, and I ask him whether he is now able to provide us with statistics which would indicate how many investigations have been thwarted or have arrived at an impasse; and how many charges have been dismissed by our courts as a result of witnesses failing to co-operate or testify, whether because of fear of retaliation or other intimidation?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I thought that I had met most of the obligations that I made at that time. Obviously, this is one that I haven’t met, and I don’t think we are following up. I will undertake to follow it up and get that information if it is available.

ROSS SHOULDICE

Mr. Martel: A question of the Premier: Has the Premier had an opportunity to determine what the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Grossman) is going to do with respect to one Ross Shouldice in the Sudbury area, seeing that he is now operating again without a licence? Is it the Premier’s intention to reconvene the Horowitz inquiry to look into the conduct, both in the past and at the present, with respect to our friend Ross Shouldice?

Mr. Nixon: That’s Stravinsky’s buddy.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I just had a brief message from the responsible minister, who tells me we will have some information, probably, by Friday of this week.

CANADA PENSION PLAN

Mr. Peterson: A question of the Treasurer: In view of the tabling of the Auditor General of Canada’s report with respect to the Canada Pension Plan, and the fact that he sees bankruptcy without an increase in contributions, has the government of the province of Ontario taken a position; and what is the Treasurer’s view on that particular suggestion of the Auditor General?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: My views have not changed since the estimates when the member asked the same question.

Mr. Peterson: Supplementary: Does that mean the minister is going to continue to borrow at present rates until there is nothing left? Is that what his plan is?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: We discussed this at some length during the estimates. I recognize that members opposite have difficulty trying to fill up this hour, but if the member wants me to give him the same lecture in economics I gave during my estimates, I’ll be glad to do so.

Mr. Makarchuk: Professor McKeough is holding class.

Mr. S. Smith: Go right ahead.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: You really have trouble don’t you?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Bellwoods, with a final question.

Mr. McClellan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Roy: On a point of order, I just point out that the Treasurer goes on a frolic of his own during the question period. I think the same rules should apply to him as to us.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The hon. member for Ottawa East shouldn’t use that legal terminology. We don’t understand.

Mr. Speaker: The question period has expired.

Mr. S. Smith: The arrogance of your government will be your undoing, and you know it.

OMBUDSMAN ESTIMATES

Mr. Wildman: In view of the comments made in general government committee during the study of estimates of the Ombudsman; the announcement this morning that the Ombudsman has shelved plans for a northern regional office; and his statements during the estimates that the north would not be used as a scapegoat in his quest for further funds; can we do something here to find out what exactly is happening with the Ombudsman?

Mr. Speaker: Well, you can’t do it on a point of privilege.

Mr. Wildman: Can you give me some direction, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: You can take it to the select committee on the Ombudsman.

EMBASSY MANAGEMENT CONTRACT

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, I wish to give notice I am unsatisfied with the answers I received this afternoon from the Minister of Government Services and wish to give notice I would like to debate the issue at 10:30 this evening.

Mr. Breithaupt: Dissatisfied.

Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 28, the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain and the hon. member for Port Arthur have indicated they are not satisfied with questions; they will be debated at 10:30 this evening.

Mr. Foulds: The questions were good, Mr. Speaker, but the answers were insufficient.

Mr. Sargent: In fact, we are not satisfied with the government.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LICENSING OF BUSINESSES BY MUNICIPALITIES ACT

Hon. Mr. McKeough moved first reading of Bill 119,

An Act to provide for the licensing of Businesses by Municipalities.

Motion agreed to.

ANSWER TO WRITTEN QUESTION

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I wish to table the answer to question 47 standing on the notice paper.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FARM PRODUCTS MARKETING AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. W. Newman moved second reading of Bill 102,

An Act to amend the Farm Products Marketing Act.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. minister have a statement?

Hon. W. Newman: Yes, I do.

Mr. Foulds: It will be the first time.

Mr. Conway: You are going to Ottawa to talk to Gene.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, most of the amendments I am proposing to the Farm Products Marketing Act and the Milk Act are in recognition of changing marketing practices. The simple assumption that marketing means that a sale takes place no longer covers many situations.

Section 1 of both bills defines marketing to include the various ways in which goods pass from one party to another. Marketing in this modern age is a complex chain of events. A product can flow through a wide variety of channels to reach the consumer. We believe that marketing should be regarded as a process which moves the product from the farm to the consumer.

[3:30]

Many of the modern means of marketing do not involve what we traditionally think of as a sale, but the end result is the same. Therefore, marketing has been redefined to include processing as well as financing, advertising, storing, et cetera, which were included in the Act previously.

Sections 2 and 3 of the farm products bill deal with inspection and augment existing provisions to allow inspectors to measure the premises on which a regulated product is produced. This relates to the equitable determination of licensing fees.

Changing marketing methods are the subject of

section 4, in which it is proposed to allow boards which now operate on marketing quotas to bring their products under production quotas. I should point out that this applies only to the Burley tobacco board, chicken boards and turkey boards. This provision is designed to take account of situations where a processor gets into primary production.

It has been argued successfully in the courts that a processor who produces the primary product but sells only the processed products is not “marketing,” and so is exempt from the marketing quotas. This kind of operation is known as vertical integration. We in the government do not believe it is in the best interest of either the farmer or the consumer of this province to have our food production industry controlled by a few very large corporations.

I may say that in any future quota plans we intend to use the production quota method rather than the marketing quota method. However, no product will be brought under a quota system unless the producers express a favourable opinion, and for the foreseeable future we do not anticipate any more quota plans.

Selling his product is not the only way a producer can earn income. He may also rent his land to a processor to produce that product.

Section 4, therefore, also authorizes those local boards that negotiate price to negotiate the rental to be paid by the processor to a landowner if the product to be produced is a regulated one. Negotiations are carried out by negotiating agencies with equal representation from processors and producers. They would determine the price and, under this provision, the rental rate. The rent so determined would be the minimum figure. An owner would be free to charge more if he could get it.

Section 5 also deals with marketing. It enlarges the situations under which a sale of a regulated product is deemed to have taken place. It covers situations where, for example, a product is produced and processed or marketed by the same person. In this case, the person as producer is deemed to have sold the product to himself as a processor or marketer, and is therefore subject to the marketing regulations. The same applies to a producer who has his product custom-processed, then sells it himself as processed goods.

This

section also covers situations where a company or co-operative in which the producer holds an interest or is a member has some outside organization process or market the product on its behalf. The provisions dealing with companies and cooperatives are proposed for the Milk Act as well.

Most of the amendments proposed for the Farm Products Marketing Act are already included in the Milk Act, a fact which was noted by a judge who heard a case brought under the Farm Products Marketing Act. The judge stated that if the farm products Act had included sections similar to the Milk Act, his decision might have been affected. The Milk Act provisions, by the way, have already stood up in many court cases.

I have received many representations from farm organizations asking me to bring forward amendments similar to the ones proposed in these bills. Investigations carried out by my staff as well as by farm organizations show that disastrous effects might be expected to many of our marketing plans if these amendments are not passed.

Supply management was introduced for certain products to avoid exaggerated fluctuations in supply and the consequent fluctuations in producers’ incomes. In very simple words, supply management is intended to stabilize a farmer’s income in an era of constantly rising costs so that our farmers can keen using our land productively. Violent swings in prices lead only to discouragement, and in some cases bankruptcy for our farmers.

I trust the hon. members will support these bills, which are vital to the health of the agricultural industry in the province of Ontario.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, my remarks are going to be somewhat lengthy on this particular bill; and I do not make any apologies for that because I would like, in my discussion and debate, to correct some of the wrong impressions that consumers have about marketing boards. I think we must understand here at the beginning that it is the consumers’ associations that are objecting rather strongly to some of the amendments in this bill

The amendments to the Farm Products Marketing Act are most essential if Ontario’s farmer-run marketing boards are to remain in business.

You no doubt know, Mr. Speaker, that organized marketing by means of marketing boards have been developed over the past 40 years. At the present time the Ontario Farm Products Marketing Board, which administers the Farm Products Marketing Act, oversees 21 active marketing boards involved in selling 60 per cent of Ontario-produced food, amounting to approximately $1.6 billion.

These boards could be ruined if businesses choose to exploit a loophole opened by a recent Ontario Supreme Court decision. The potential loophole was created recently when the court ruled that the Eastern Ontario Vegetable Grower’s Co-operative of Trenton is owned by farmers and therefore does not need to comply with marketing board rules, including minimum prices processors must pay corn and pea growers.

The fear is that this loophole could be expanded to cover any commodity farmers market through a board, destroying the effectiveness of price, production and marketing controls. Marketing boards hold varying degrees of power over farm commodities and function in much the same way as unions for workers. A few boards have been granted enough power to limit production and set prices. If the boards are broken, I would have to think farming will be set back 40 years and there is the danger that the farming industry will be largely controlled by large companies. In which case, farmers will assume the risks of lower prices and surplus production.

If the loophole opened by a recent Ontario Supreme Court decision in the case of the Farm Products Marketing Board versus Eastern Ontario Vegetable Grower’s Cooperative, and the decision of the divisional court of the Supreme Court of Ontario in the case of Campbell Soup Company versus Farm Products Marketing Board, is not closed, then Ontario’s food industry could fall into the hands of a few large corporations.

The ruling of the Supreme Court would allow some groups to bypass the price setting and production control powers of many of Ontario’s farm products marketing boards. If that happens, farm marketing will be thrown into chaos and many of Ontario’s existing family farmers could be driven out of business.

The Ontario Farm Products Marketing Act requires farmers who raise chickens, turkeys and some other products, to sell their products at a price set by the marketing boards. The farmer must also have quota issued in order to produce or sell his products. The Supreme Court ruling in the case of the Eastern Ontario Vegetable Grower’s Co-operative in Trenton allows the co-operative to get around the regulations. The co-operative sells vegetables already processed, thus allowing it to bypass the provincial Act which only covers the sale of raw products. Since farmers own part of the co-operative, they don’t actually sell the raw product to anybody but are able to skirt the regulations.

The poultry industry has had a similar problem, since Campbell’s Soup Limited won a court case earlier this year. The ruling said that Campbell’s Soups Limited is selling chicken dinners, not raising chickens at its farms, and therefore falls outside the scope of the Chicken Marketing Board. Campbell’s Soups is both a producer and processor of chicken, and are therefore able to circumvent the Act as they are not selling a regulated product as specified in the Act.

The concern is not about the Campbell company but about the larger operation, for example a large fried chicken chain might exploit the same loophole. As a matter of fact, the loophole could be expanded to cover any commodity farmers market through a board, destroying the effectiveness of price, production and marketing control. There have already been indications that processors in commodities other than the ones involved in the court cases will exploit the loophole.

In general terms, the loophole works by making farmers financial partners in the final product that is sold, integrating the business from the farm through the wholesales system. In law, the amalgamated farmer/processor system is selling a processed product. The Ontario Farm Products Marketing Act deals with raw products sold by farmers, not finished and processed foods, so amalgamated organizations escape the marketing board’s price, production and marketing controls.

I think it might be of interest at this time to give a brief history of the events which led to a court case between the Farm Products Marketing Board and the Eastern Ontario Vegetable Growers Co-operative. As I indicated previously, the amendments to this Act have been made necessary by the decision of the Supreme Court.

Several years ago, a processing company controlled by a prominent Trenton area man by the name of Eban James -- and I might just mention at this time, Mr. Speaker, that this same man, Eban James, I understand, was the bagman for the Tory party --

Hon. W. Newman: I heard the opposite.

Mr. Riddell: No, no -- and the reason, probably, that the minister was somewhat reluctant to bring in amendments to this bill when they should have come in.

Hon. W. Newman: That’s not so; check it for yourself.

Mr. Riddell: This man, Eban James, built a new plant with substantial backing from both the federal and provincial governments in the form of forgivable loans for economically backward regions. This company, called Produce Processors Limited, as a processing company freezes and stores both sweet corn and peas on a custom basis. The plant was built about six years ago by a group of people in eastern Ontario who were concerned about the fact that the processors were rapidly abandoning eastern Ontario.

As I indicated, there were several hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in the plant that came from the government under the ARDA program. It was built on the strength of the UK market when Canada had a preferential tariff over other countries exporting sweet corn to the United Kingdom. The Ontario Vegetable Producers Marketing Board was able to negotiate steeply higher prices for corn and peas in the mid-1970s in the wake of rising grain corn and soya bean prices. Had processors not paid those higher prices in southwestern Ontario, farmers would have stopped growing sweet corn and peas.

At the same time, competition for overseas markets stiffened, particularly for corn in England. The competition came from Israel and North Africa. The new processing plant needed as much volume as it could get to lower per-unit costs. Farmers in the area wanted to grow more sweet corn, even if prices had to be lowered to find a market. That led to a dispute with the marketing board.

The upshot was that farmers formed a co-operative to process and sell their own corn. The Eastern Ontario Vegetable Growers Co-operative Incorporated, as it was called, is the buyer of the raw product and the seller of the finished product. It pays a fee to produce processors to have the raw product processed and stored. It is also responsible for paying the growers for the raw product.

Prior to the spring of 1976, a person by the name of Bill Oosterink who was the owner of OMAR Farm Produce Limited, used to fulfil the role that the co-operative now plays. Following the 1976 negotiations, the British pound weakened severely, shipping rates increased, the raw product prices of sweet corn increased; Canada lost its preferential position with the United Kingdom and Israel gained an advantaged, duty-free position with the European Economic Community. All of the factors combined to convince OMAR to get out.

This left the growers in the tough position of no potential contracting concerns interested in their corn. Eban James, who holds 80 per cent of the shares in Produce Processors, was not anxious to have the plant cease operations. First of all, this would cause Eban James and Produce Processors to relinquish their ARDA funding, and the plant would probably have to be sold at distress prices to a western Ontario giant.

The obvious question at this point is: Why didn’t Produce Processors contract directly with the producers like any other processor? This question has been asked several times by the Ontario Vegetable Growers Marketing Board. The pat answer was that under the terms of the ARDA funding, it was not allowed. The Farm Products Marketing Board tried to verify this statement with senior officials and they were told that it simply was not true. The real reason for not contracting directly is directly related to the ARDA loan.

If Produce Processors were contracting directly, it would have to abide by the marketing agreement or it could lose funding from ARDA in the event that the marketing board laid charges.

[3:45]

Under the present system, produce processors are under no obligations whatsoever. Eban James, with his great white father image, is able to set whatever fee for processing he wishes and reverts all the risk of growing the crop and selling the finished product to the producers who are members of the co-operative. I would hope that a copy of my remarks would get back to the eastern Ontario producers, because I really think that they are being taken in. After they read what I have to say, they might think twice about Eban James and his great processing outlet.

Mr. Reed: Is he related to Jesse?

Mr. Riddell: The system has worked quite well for Eban James. Producers only got paid 60 per cent of the negotiated price last year. Produce Processors Limited showed a profit for the first time in its history. You can imagine what the processing fee must be if all the overhead for a $5-million plant was covered on the put-through of one crop. The situation may be better in 1977 since both peas and corn were processed.

The marketing situation of the co-operative is almost as immoral as the custom processing arrangement. The co-operative is forced to rely on one broker in the United Kingdom market. This is Mr. Don Bartlett of Barwell Foods Limited out of Montreal, an export and import trading house. He is a world trader who scouts out several prices for all the vegetables he handles, including sweet corn. He also engages in price competition on various world markets, but the United Kingdom sweet corn market is by far his largest.

As you can see, he is in the position of telling his customers where he can get the product cheaper and what he will pay for the corn based on the market conditions. It is a take-it-or-leave-it proposition from their point of view. Therefore, in essence, it is as close to a consignment selling arrangement as you can come. It was learned that Bartlett was selling top quality Canadian corn from the Eastern Ontario Vegetable Growers Cooperative in low quality markets. This is an absolutely ridiculous situation and would be impossible if he were not in a monopsony situation.

This matter has been pointed out several times to the members of the co-op. It was suggested that they would be better served if they hired their own salesman in the United Kingdom, someone responsible only to them.

The members of the co-op referred to the chairman, Mr. Bob Petty, as their salesman. First of all, Mr. Petty had no export sales experience. He is not present in the market and Bartlett is still handling all the corn on a commission basis. As you can see from all of this, the growers are caught in the middle between Eban James and Don Bartlett, and as a result are not being paid the negotiated price while everyone else around them is making money.

The glaring question which now appears is why do growers in eastern Ontario apparently support this system or conceal their objections as to what is happening? There are several reasons for this situation.

First, the producers have been reassured all along, ever since meetings last spring with the co-op executive, that the co-op is not out to break the law. They claim they are vertical integrators, just like York Farms. The glaring difference between what they are doing and what a true vertical integrator does is in the matter of risk and where it lies. York Farms, for instance, is a situation where the company absorbs all the risk of growing, processing and marketing the crop. In the co-operative situation, the individual grower has all the risk while the processing company and the marketing agent are assured of at least expenses plus a profit.

Second, the producers, to the best of my knowledge, have never been told that they will not be paid in full for their corn. They were told there may be some rough times, but whenever there is money available they will be paid what is available. This has worked for a year, but as recent as the Northumberland county meeting in November, producers have been questioning why they have not been paid when everyone else is being paid.

Third, and the most important reason, is the feeling that they have no other choice if they wish to continue growing sweet corn. This is a reason which we, as elected people in the Legislature, and the Vegetable Growers Marketing Board, must all take responsibility for.

In fact the Ontario Vegetable Growers Marketing Board has made a definite commitment to the eastern Ontario growers. On November 9, the Minister of Agriculture and Food met with representatives of the co-op, the processing industry and the vegetable board. At the outset, the minister made it clear that the Act would be amended. He also made it clear that he wanted the eastern Ontario growers to be accommodated and that he wanted sweet corn exports from Ontario to continue. The vegetable board publicly committed itself to attempt to accommodate sweet corn exports.

A committee made up of participants was struck by the minister; members of the committee are Dr. G. Collin, chairman of the Farm Products Marketing Board; Mr. Cecil Farrow, vice-president of the Green Giant of Canada Limited, Mr. Hank Vander Pol, chairman of the Ontario Vegetable Growers Marketing Board; and none other than Mr. Eban James, majority stockholder of Produce Processors and the largest contract grower for the Eastern Ontario Vegetable Growers Co-operative.

Fourth, the growers of the co-operative are not fully informed of the situation. The co-operative has had only one general meeting with its growers since its beginning. There was another meeting scheduled for November. The telex which the co-op recently sent the cabinet ministers saying they would be put out of business by the new legislation was not read to the growers before the 91 signatures went on the petition. In fact some growers were not even notified that there was any kind of a telex being sent.

No one, including the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, has seen an audited statement of the co-operative financial affairs. The chairman of the cooperative, in a closed meeting, admitted to the chairman of the Farm Products Marketing Board and the chairman of the Ontario Vegetable Growers Marketing Board that the co-operative was a paper front for produce processors. Growers were not informed of this because it was raised at the November county meeting and Mr. James categorically denied the statement.

Mr. Petty, the chairman of the co-operative, was not present at the county meeting. It is my understanding that this bill will be sent to a standing committee. Having talked on many occasions to the director on the Ontario Vegetable Growers Marketing Board from the riding which I represent, I can anticipate some of the information that will come forth at that committee meeting.

A spokesman for the Eastern Ontario Vegetable Growers Co-operative, and I trust that will be Eban James, will say that the Minister of Agriculture and Food and the vegetable board sanctioned, the illegal operation of the co-operative at a price of $45 a ton for sweet corn in 1976 instead of the negotiated price of $61.25.

What actually happened is that the minister stated that the ministry would help in whatever way it could to set up a properly run co-operative. I am kind of letting you off the hook here, Bill, I hope you are listening. As it turned out, Mr. O’Mara of the ministry drew up their charter along normal lines. At no time did anyone suggest that they could purchase sweet corn at below the negotiated price.

I am sure that the committee will also hear the statement that the marketing board is western Ontario oriented, has done nothing to stop vertical integration and has done nothing to prevent processors from leaving eastern Ontario. I might just draw to your attention that eastern Ontario is represented on the marketing board on the same basis as any other part of the province. The directors do not condone the operations of the co-operative and are in fact attempting, as the marketing board is, to correct the situation in favour of the eastern Ontario producer.

At last year’s annual convention of the Ontario Vegetable Growers Marketing Board, producers from all across the province ratified the establishment of an export development fund to promote the export of frozen sweet corn. When the Ontario Vegetable Growers Marketing Board met with the eastern Ontario co-operative, they rejected the proposal on the basis that they would still have to pay the negotiated price to be eligible for a subsidy from the fund.

I am sure we will also hear that the marketing board price is set too high and will not allow the eastern Ontario co-operative to compete. The marketing board does not set any prices. They are negotiated. At the county meetings, prior to the 1976 and 1977 negotiations, the eastern Ontario producers presented resolutions requesting an increase in the price of sweet corn. As it turned out, in the 1977 negotiations the industry agreed to drop the price from $61.25 to $56.75 per ton because of market conditions.

The eastern Ontario co-operative will also claim that the Crop Insurance Commission is discriminating against them. I am sure that the co-operative has met with the Crop Insurance Commission; and Henry Ediger, general manager of the Crop Insurance Commission of Ontario, has met with the eastern Ontario co-operative. It was made very clear to the co-operative exactly what the situation is. The Crop Insurance Commission does not wish to become a market for the sweet corn produced by the members of the co-operative. The co-operative has failed to take the necessary steps of proving financial responsibility and convincing the commission otherwise.

I should not speak for the Crop Insurance Commission, but I am sure Mr. Ediger will verify the reason for not insuring the growers. By not adhering to the marketing board regulations, producers are unable to get crop insurance. This was particularly serious this year, because 700 acres of corn were bypassed by the co-operative. The Ontario Vegetable Growers Marketing Board’s concern in this matter is that the producers not be monopolized any further; but unless there is an alternative presented, it will likely continue for another year at least.

The alternative is in the formulation stages under the committee which the minister has set up. This has to work, or both the marketing board and the co-operative will have an uncertain future.

I have spent some time outlining this case, for I think it is important that the members of this Legislature recognize the vulnerability of farmers in joint ventures with companies looking for ways to bypass any market-board rules or regulations. This vulnerability is exemplified by the fact that the eastern Ontario co-operative paid its farmers $32 a ton for corn, and settled with a final payment of $5 a ton when the crop was sold.

The contract price as negotiated by the Ontario Vegetable Growers Marketing Board was $61.25 a ton. The cost of producing a ton of corn is estimated to be $42 a ton. So not only would the eastern Ontario producers not meet their cost of production with the payment made by the co-op, they would be short-changed by an amount of $24 a ton.

It is my understanding that the eastern Ontario producers have not received the payment for this year’s crop, which is further indication of the farmers’ vulnerability in such a risk-sharing venture. The farmers have no financial security. A venture of this nature simply amounts to consignment production, with the farmer paid whatever can be made by producing, processing and selling a crop.

The processing companies, which now rent land and pay help to produce crops, would be tempted to follow the lead of the eastern Ontario co-operative and try to shift the financial risk to individual farmers. There is also the danger that the system could be applied for any other commodity and undermine the pricing, production, quality and other controls farmer-run marketing boards have developed over the past 40 years.

The system could even be applied to innocuous boards such as pork. A packing company, for example, could make a joint deal with a farmer to market bacon and ham, and they could jointly go into unlimited production at an integrated price and market their hogs and pork completely outside of the Ontario Pork Producers Marketing Board teletype system.

The Pork Producers Marketing Board is unlike the Vegetable Growers Marketing Board in that it does not negotiate price. However, for those boards that do negotiate price, the Farm Products Marketing Board requires, under the terms of the Farm Products Marketing Act, that payment of a negotiated price to producers by processors does not apply to vertically-integrated producers. Vertically-integrated producers are those who both produce and process crops grown on their own or leased lands, such as York Farms or Canada Packers. They own or lease land, produce vegetables with hired labour and subsequently process the vegetables.

It is obvious that there are a number of solutions to the problem. First, the Ontario Vegetable Growers Marketing Board could be designated as an agency board. This would require that a producer first sell his crops to the board which would in turn sell it to processors. There are presently seven agency boards in Ontario -- apple, asparagus, beans, eggs, greenhouse vegetables, tender fruit and wheat.

[4:00]

Secondly, production controls could be imposed; marketing plans would have to be changed, producers would be told how much they can grow. This, in many segments of the farming industry, is not an acceptable route.

Thirdly, amendments could be made to the Farm Products Marketing Act. Through definition, the amendments to the Act would require that vertically-integrated companies not be exempt from marketing plans. The Ontario Milk Marketing Board has this requirement in effect now under the terms of the Milk Act.

It is also important to note that the problem requires both an economic solution as well as the legal solution. The processors in eastern Ontario were established to meet the export market. Presently, because of the minimum negotiated prices that must be paid by the processors, they’re finding it increasingly difficult to compete on the export market.

Possible solutions are; firstly, the negotiation of a two-price system -- one for the export market and one for the domestic market. It would be negotiated through the present marketing board system. A pool would be established which would be contributed to by all the producers of a certain commodity. Money would go from this pool to those processors who are contributing to the export market so that producer prices for both markets would be more evenly distributed.

The Vegetable Growers Marketing Board has already agreed to pursue this alternative.

A second solution would be a government subsidy for producers supplying the export market. This, I must say, is an unpopular solution and may lead to more problems than it solves.

I’m sure the minister considered all possible solutions to the problems and accordingly both the Farm Products Marketing Act and the Milk Act to plug the loopholes which became apparent after two companies were successful in circumventing the Act.

In my earlier remarks I made references to the leasing of land, and although this could have been another way around the Act, the minister has very wisely introduced an amendment which would prohibit processors from operating outside of the pricing aspect of the plan by leasing land for a very nominal fee. If this amendment was not introduced, a processing company could lease land for, let’s say $1 an acre, grow a crop, process it and sell the finished product, in which case a deemed sale of a regulated product does not enter the picture. Prices do not apply on internal transactions and for this reason an amendment to include leasing in price negotiations was introduced.

The amendment empowers negotiating agencies to negotiate rent for land rented for the production of a regulated product. To bring vertical integrators under the terms of the Act an amendment was introduced to add provisions which deemed the sale to have taken place where a producer operates in two capacities, by producing and processing, or producing and marketing, regardless of whether his processing and marketing operations are carried out by himself or through the agency of another.

The definition of marketing has been changed to bring it more in line with the current marketing theory, which includes the entire process of moving a product from the farm gates to the consumer. Marketing under the present Act places too much emphasis on buying and selling, and all the other things such as advertising, assembling, financing, packing, processing, selling, shipping, storing and transporting are ancillary to the buying and selling aspect of the definition. The amendment, therefore, de-emphasizes the buying and selling aspect of the term marketing.

Another amendment which was made to the Act enlarges the authority of the board to make regulations to provide for the producing of regulated products on a quota basis. The amendment would prohibit any person to whom a quota has not been fixed and allotted for the producing of a regulated product, or whose quota has been cancelled from producing any of the regulated product.

It would also prohibit the production of a regulated product in excess of quota, and it would prohibit any person to whom a quota has been fixed and allotted for the producing of a regulated product on lands or premises, in respect of which such quota was fixed and allotted, from producing any of the regulated product other than the regulated product produced on such lands or premises.

The consumer group tends to blame food price increases on marketing boards and the orderly marketing system. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I get more than a little annoyed when I hear the Consumers Association of Canada laying the blame on marketing boards for rising food costs. The consumers should consider the other side of the coin, and that is the role which food prices play in keeping down the cost of living.

I don’t know how one gets the message to the consumer. I would have hoped more members would have stayed in the House to listen to my remarks. Not that I think they are all that great, but I think we have a responsibility to get a message across to the consumer. The message is what a privilege it is to live in this country and to enjoy an abundance of high quality food at more reasonable prices than you will find anywhere else in the world. So I am hoping the members will take some time to read Hansard and the remarks I am making, and then go out and spread the message to those consumers who are led down the garden path by the Consumers Association of Canada. That is my own personal opinion.

The consumers group, as I say, should consider the other side of the coin, and that is the role which food prices play in keeping down the cost of living. I don’t know how one gets the message to the consumer, but the fact of the matter is food prices have decreased while the prices of all other major consumer items have increased.

To use an example, Mr. Speaker, I am going to take a time period from September 1975 to September 1976. Housing, including utilities, furniture, appliances, et cetera, increased 11.2 per cent; clothing increased by 5.8 per cent; transportation increased 10.1 per cent. In the same period, food at home decreased in price. Now get this, when everything else is going up, the price of food at home decreased two per cent; and total food, including that consumed away from home, decreased 0.5 per cent.

If other prices had stayed the same as they were in September, 1975, and only food at home had made a change of minus two per cent, the consumer price index would have dropped about 0.5 per cent. Instead, it increased 6.5 per cent.

Too much has been said lately about the supposed cost of supply management and marketing boards. These figures show clearly that food prices have not been increasing at an alarming rate, and indeed they have not been increased at all. I am going to take some statistics to prove this point. These statistics deal with the personal consumption expenditure for food.

If I go back to 1960; 16.1 per cent of income was spent on food, consumed at home, 4.1 per cent was spent on food away from home. In 1965, the figures were 14.2 per cent of income spent on food consumed at home, and again four per cent on food consumed away from home. In 1970, it was 13.4 per cent of the consumer’s income was spent on food consumed at home, and 3.9 per cent spent on food consumed away from home. In 1976, the figures were 12.7 per cent of personal income was spent on food consumed at home and again 4.1 per cent on food consumed away from home.

Can you imagine 12.7 per cent or 13 per cent, and add on to that another four per cent of food consumed away from home, so in the neighbourhood of 17 to 18 per cent of the consumer’s income was spent on food; and yet there is all this hue and cry about the high price of food. It makes me sick; and I don’t mind telling my consumer friends that.

I happen to get elected time after time and I spread that very same message, that the consumers don’t know how lucky they are paying as little for food as they do; getting high quality, and an abundance of it.

While I am talking about food, I would just like to quote from a speech the federal minister gave at the Ontario Federation of Agriculture last week some time; I just forget the date.

Hon. W. Newman: Tuesday night.

Mr. Riddell: I quote: “I want assurance that Canadians can rely on getting the best value for their food dollars. Right now it is estimated that 18 per cent of every take-home dollar goes on food. That’s assuming one meal out of three is eaten out of the home. A report put out by the USDA puts that figure at 13.8 per cent being spent on meals taken in the home. That’s compared with 26.5 per cent in Italy, 21.5 per cent in the United Kingdom and 15 per cent in the United States. So our food prices are lower here than they are in the United States or a lesser percentage of the consumers income is going on food here than in the United States.

“A couple of weeks back Statistics Canada announced that the consumer price index was up one per cent in October. They said that food and housing were the main culprits. I hope that made a few farmers mad. It made me mad. I wish the whole story could be told.

“Consumers should understand that a consumer price index is not a cost of living index. Cost of living is money spent on living as a per cent of total disposable income. The consumers price index is simply a list of 325 consumer items that are compared monthly and these items went up in October. So did food. But not as much as it looks on paper.

“That’s because Statistics Canada weights the food part of the index higher than it should. About 18 per cent of your income goes on food. Statistics Canada uses 27 per cent, which is the percentage we spent on food 25 years ago. Food did cost less 25 years ago, but it wasn’t cheaper.

“Back in 1951 an average hour’s pay bought 1.2 pounds of sirloin steak; in 1976, that same hour’s pay bought 3.5 pounds. Back in 1951, you could buy 1.2 pounds of prime rib roast with an hour’s work; last year you could buy 4.5 pounds. A 1976 hour would buy four times as many eggs, two and a half times as much chicken and over twice as many pork chops; twice as much milk, potatoes, apples and bread compared to 25 years ago.

“We live in a luxury-minded society today; expensive vacations, fancy cars, two televisions are all looked on as necessities. Yet most people resent paying out for the