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

October 22, 1981

32nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

LIQUOR LICENSING

ONTARIO ENERGY INVESTMENT

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

SAFETY IN PROFESSIONAL BOXING

LAND-USE PLANS

PUBLIC OFFICERS ACT

ORAL QUESTIONS

PURCHASE OF JET

UNEMPLOYMENT

INTEREST RATES

ELECTION SPENDING

ONTARIO ENERGY INVESTMENT

LUMBER COMPANY LAYOFFS

TORONTO EAST GENERAL HOSPITAL

QUEEN STREET MENTAL HEALTH CENTRE

BROCKVILLE PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL

GASOLINE PRICES

ASSISTANCE TO BEEF PRODUCERS

PETITION

HIGHWAY 527

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF MISSISSAUGA ACT

BURFORD LIONS' CLUB ACT

HOMES FOR ABUSED SPOUSES ACT

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

LIQUOR LICENSING

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would like your advice, sir. It has been reported to me you said in the procedural affairs committee this morning the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) and myself were out of order in bringing to your attention that the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Walker) had been misdirected in the information he provided the House. This had to do with the statement made by the member for St. Catharines concerning the extension of licensed hours under a special occasion permit.

Since the honourable minister made an allegation in this House the honourable member knew to be incorrect, what recourse does he have other than rising at the first opportunity to ask you to have the honourable minister correct the situation?

I would bring to your attention that the honourable minister has never corrected the situation. It was even incorrectly reported in the Toronto Daily Star because it was allowed to go forward in this House without correction. If that is not a point of privilege, what is?

Mr. Martel: I would like to speak to my friend's point of order. Over the years the experience in this House has been that even if a member is wrongly accused of doing something, he is never allowed to make an accusation against the person charging him with that. For example, if someone were to be lying about you -- and I use that term carefully -- you are not allowed in this House to get up and accuse someone of lying, even though they might well be. The person who gets turfed out is not the person who makes the allegation, but the person defending himself.

I have argued on a number of occasions and have been tossed out of this House on more than one occasion for that reason. Although I have argued the point, I have never been able to understand why we never have been able to get a Speaker to rule that the person making the accusation should have to correct the record.

Why should the onus be on the member being accused to get up in his place when he does not have a point or order, yet he knows what is said about him is incorrect? If he goes the route I went and calls someone a liar, he will be thrown out. It seems to me a decision on the matter and how it is to be resolved is long overdue.

In future, you should consider having the person making the allegation get up and withdraw or clarify the position. That is the individual who should be tossed out on his ear -- not the person aggrieved. As soon as that occurs once or twice, such despicable practices as displayed by the minister last week would stop. The circumstances last week certainly led this House to believe the member for St. Catharines was looking for special privileges for the Liberal Party.

I would ask you to do something to rectify this. Bring in a ruling or ask the procedural affairs committee to establish some sort of rule to rectify the situation once and for all.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to what appears to have been a point of order raised by the honourable member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk. He has indicated there was some incorrectness in my comments on Friday. In light of the points of order raised by the member for St. Catharines, in light of the points of order raised by various members of that party, I reviewed the instant Hansard which was provided me at the time. I was satisfied in looking at it that every single comment I made was 100 per cent correct. I would ask any member who disputes that to tell me what

section they consider incorrect.

I was speaking to exemptions or exceptions to rules generally and I very carefully pointed out that the case involving the St. Catharines' Liberal Association had to do with the special occasion permit. The matter involving the licence of the Harbour Castle Hotel for that international charity was an extension of the regular licence for one hour. I was referring to the general concept of exceptions that are made to rigid rules from time to time. I still stand by that. Having reviewed every word I said during that day I would say it is 100 per cent accurate.

Mr. Bradley: Rising on the point of order, I think the point the House leader for the Liberal Party is making is that the opportunity for members to refute the contention made by a person in the House should be allowed to us through a question of privilege in the House.

2:10 p.m.

What was reported. as far as the procedural affairs committee is concerned, was that somehow I was wrong in attempting to use a point of privilege to correct that misconception. The impression was left with most members of the House, and certainly was reported in the media, that the member for St. Catharines had been able to obtain, through intervention with the minister's office, an extension from 1 a.m. to 2 am., because that was the subject of the question. That was the impression that was given and, of course, that is totally inaccurate.

What I explained in my point of privilege was that all the member for St. Catharines had indicated he had asked for was the same privileges that had been extended to the Progressive Conservative Party a few weeks earlier and not to other groups.

Mr. Speaker: In replying to the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk on the point of order he raised, I hope there is not any misunderstanding in what I said at the committee this morning.

I would like to call the attention of all members to this matter which was raised on a point of privilege. On Monday, May 25, I pointed out to the House, as have previous Speakers, that when a member considers the remarks of another member to be offensive it may constitute a point of order, but it is certainly not a point of privilege. That was the point I was trying to make.

I will repeat the definition of privilege as contained in standing order 18: "Privileges are the rights enjoyed by the House collectively and by members of the House individually conferred by the Legislative Assembly Act and other statutes, or by practice, precedent, usage and custom."

Actually, all I had said in the earlier ruling -- and I stand by it -- was that it was not a point of privilege. The member rose to correct the record, and there is nothing wrong with that, but I suggest it should have been raised as a point of order. That is the only point I was going to make. I hope that is clear -- that members do have the right to stand up and correct the record.

ONTARIO ENERGY INVESTMENT

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Rule 26(

c) says specifically, "After any policy statement the minister shall table a compendium of background information."

I want to bring to your attention that the compendium of background information that has been received with respect to the Suncor purchase consists only of documents already available in the public domain. It comprised the annual report of Sun Oil, the annual report of the Ontario Energy Corporation and other material that is readily available in the public domain. There has been no effort made by the government to make available to the members of this House any of the papers on which the decision to acquire Suncor was based.

In addition, while the announcement was made in this House on October 13, a week ago Tuesday, the one document that has been prepared here is dated October 21 -- yesterday.

I ask you to look at this, Mr. Speaker, with a view to ensuring that compendiums are prepared before announcements rather than a week afterwards and that the compendium of information is not just public relations material available generally but that it pertain directly to why the government decided to do what it has done.

Mr. Smith: On that point of order, Mr. Speaker: I think this is an extremely serious matter, and I ask you to give it your very strict attention. You are aware, sir, that the purchase of 25 per cent, and the possible eventual purchase of 51 per cent, of a major oil company is one of the largest deals consummated in Ontario in recent memory.

The compendium that was being sought had to do with the facts upon which the government based this important decision for utilizing scarce and borrowed resources. It obviously dealt with the advice by McLeod, Young, Weir Limited, an analysis done by Price, Waterhouse and Company and any other such detailed information upon which the government may have based its decision.

It is very difficult for us in the opposition to be able to deal with this matter in any detail, other than a general impression we may have, if we are to be denied access to the information upon which the Premier (Mr. Davis) based his decision.

When we asked for a compendium we did not expect the matter to be treated as something of a joke. What else can one call a compendium which starts with a paper on Energy Security for the Eighties; A Policy for Ontario, a paper issued some time last year; a compendium which goes on to a speech made a year ago by the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) on a so-called energy program; which reprints the national energy program as though members of this House were unaware of it, and then provides a glossy press handout which is obviously of no value at all in having reached a decision?

The only new piece of information was prepared just yesterday and has to do with information freely available in the public press or on the front page of the Suncor report itself.

I honestly believe a warped sense of humour has gone into the compilation of this so-called compendium, although I suppose one is more amused on some days than on other days. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, on a serious matter of this kind, to recognize that contempt is being shown for members of this Legislature. I would ask for a serious compendium to be given, containing the detailed financial information upon which the government made this decision.

And I would ask you not to permit this government to continue to keep the elected representatives of the people of Ontario totally in the dark -- including their own back-bench members and maybe the ministers themselves -- on the financial basis of this vital and important transaction.

There is a time when democracy has to count for something in this House. I would think on a matter of this kind the humour shown by this compendium is not funny and deserves your attention, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that compendium means the facts -- a total collation of the information on which a decision was made. We know from what the Premier has said at his press conference there is information in addition to that which has been tabled in the Legislature. There is the information they got from the financial consulting firm, McLeod Young Weir, for example. Clearly the Premier and his government are in contempt of the standing orders of the Legislature.

Also, the government has an obligation to table those documents and the analysis its own officials did in considering the takeover of 25 per cent of Suncor; otherwise the Premier should get up in the House and say they made no analysis, that they did it by the seat of their pants.

Mr. Speaker: This matter has been raised on several occasions and quite obviously there is a difference of opinion on what --

Mr. Martel: Yes, but there is no action forthcoming.

Mr. Foulds: There is contempt for the standing orders of the House.

Mr. Speaker: The standing order of the House, as I understand it, has been dealt with. It is difficult for me to rule on the adequacy of the information. I am not privy to this type of information to make a judgement any more than any other member of this House; in fact, not as much. However, your point has been well made. It will be drawn to the attention of those people entrusted with the responsibility of providing this information.

Mr. Smith: We are not going to be kept in the dark, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I am not suggesting that, with all respect.

Mr. Smith: This is a joke.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps -- order.

Mr. Smith: There is an arrogance

Mr. Speaker: Order. Your point has been well made. The matter will be brought to the attention of those who have responsibility for producing this information. As I said before, it is impossible for me to rule on the adequacy of the information.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order: Could we appeal to you as the Speaker responsible for carrying out the functions of this Legislature for a ruling which would seek to define and that would give guidance to government ministers as to just what a compendium of information ought to contain.

It is surely not enough in our opinion that you will bring our comments and opinions to the attention of the government ministers. They can read Hansard as well as anybody else. What is required, Mr. Speaker -- and what we look for from the presiding officer of this Legislature -- is an independent judgement as to what the rules mean or do not mean. Could we have that ruling from you in the near future, Mr. Speaker?

2:20 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I will be prepared to take a look at that but I want every member to understand that I am not privy to information.

Before we proceed, I would like to take the time to introduce to the members of this Legislature a very distinguished visitor who is sitting in the Speaker's Gallery. She is Madam Simone Veil, president of the European parliament, who has graced us with her presence here today.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

SAFETY IN PROFESSIONAL BOXING

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, in May I reported to the Legislature the recommendations of the federal task force on boxing in Canada as well as several initiatives being undertaken by the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I would like to outline the progress since that time.

Mr. Smith: You are going to buy 25 per cent of Sugar Ray Leonard.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No, 25 per cent of you as a mud wrestler.

Hon. Mr. Walker: We will give you a compendium as well -- a complete pedigree.

By way of background, last year's tragic death of boxer Cleveland Denny and serious injuries to another boxer, Ralph Racine, led to the establishment of the federal task force. Six months later the task force made several recommendations. many of which are being implemented by my ministry.

First, Ontario boxers will be required to carry a passport-type licence which will show their fight and medical records. The licence will be surrendered before the fight and returned to the boxer after the fight results and medical examination have been entered. The only other jurisdiction in North America which uses this type of licence is the state of New York.

We realize this system can only be effective if it is implemented and in force in other jurisdictions, so we are taking it one step further. Since many boxers who fight in Ontario are from border states such as Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan, I have just written to the governors and boxing authorities of each of those states asking for their co-operation in setting up an effective record-keeping system. This way we can better ensure the information contained in the boxer's passport is up-to-date and accurate.

This precaution, coupled with a computer check through our terminal to the New York state data bank system, should help prevent future tragedies. It is believed, for example, that unreported recent knockouts in other fights could have contributed to Mr. Denny's untimely death.

An important component of our efforts to make boxing safer in Ontario is to assist boxing officials and ringside physicians in becoming more knowledgeable about the medical hazards faced by boxers every time they step into the ring. To this end, I announced in May that instructional clinics would be developed by our Ontario Athletics Commissioner, Clyde Gray. The first in this series of medical clinics will be held in Toronto this Saturday. I think it is worth mentioning that it is the first of its kind in Canada.

The response to Mr. Gray's efforts has been overwhelming. We were anticipating about 80 people but nearly double that number have responded so far. This one-day seminar will be attended by top-notch referees, trainers, managers and boxing authorities from across Canada and the United States. About 15 Ontario doctors are also expected to attend. Dr. Bruce Stewart, a noted Toronto neurologist, former amateur boxer and our new medical director in the athletics commissioner's office, will be instructing doctors on how to examine a boxer before a fight and what to look for during the bout.

It should be pointed out that ringside doctors play a doubly important role as they now have the power to stop a fight at any time for medical reasons. In many jurisdictions a doctor can only stop a fight between rounds, perhaps too late to prevent serious injury to a boxer. Dr. Stewart will also be using video tapes of fights where boxers have been killed or seriously injured to illustrate when a doctor should intervene.

I would also like to extend my thanks to the honourable Gerald Regan, federal minister responsible for fitness and amateur sport, for contributing to the cost of our seminar.

While it may be impossible to eliminate death or serious injury in the ring, I am convinced my ministry is doing everything in its power to ensure that the risks to boxers who fight in this province are minimized. I believe this province is a demonstrated leader in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce the new athletics commissioner, Mr. Clyde Gray, who is sitting in the Speaker's Gallery, on the far side. Many will know Mr. Gray. Since becoming a professional boxer in 1968 he has had 78 professional fights and was ranked number one contender for the world championship three times between 1973 and 1977. Mr. Gray was appointed supervisor of boxing in 1980 and was promoted to athletics commissioner in October 1981.

Dr. Bruce Stewart, sitting beside Mr. Gray, now is with the Ontario Athletics Commission as medical director. He is chief of medicine at the Etobicoke General Hospital and an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Toronto. He has been a ring physician with the commission since 1966 and has just been appointed medical director.

LAND-USE PLANS

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, you will recall that last Thursday I tabled a document concerning a land-use plan for the West Patricia area of Ontario. Today, also as part of my ministry's extensive land-use planning program, I am tabling two boxes of recently-published material.

The first package contains background information documents for land-use plans in 23 of my ministry's 47 administrative districts. Additional material consists of a brochure about the land-use plan for Wawa district, a tabloid that presents an overview of land-use planning for the eastern administrative region and a set of general land-use planning guidelines.

The second package consists of mailing lists -- names and addresses of individuals, organizations and agencies to whom my staff routinely forward all published material pertaining to strategic land-use plans for the northwestern, north-central and northeastern regions of the province, the southern Ontario co-ordinated program strategy and the West Patricia land-use plan.

These extensive lists reflect the emphasis my ministry places on the public involvement phase of our strategic land-use planning program. As I said in my statement last week, I consider public participation an extremely important step in the planning process.

I regret that individual copies of this material are not yet available for the news media. However, copies are filed in the Natural Resources library and the public reading room in the Whitney Block. Also, in each district documents are made available to the local members of the Legislature and the press.

It is my intention to table additional land-use plan documents as they become available for the remaining districts. This will ensure that each and every member is fully aware of the scope and significance of this very important program.

PUBLIC OFFICERS ACT

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the Public Officers Act requires that, within the first 15 days of every session, I advise this assembly of all securities furnished on behalf of public officers and of any changes made to securities. Since my statement of May 5, 1981, there has been no change in either category.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PURCHASE OF JET

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources.

Ontario faces a very serious crisis in terms of our diminishing forest resources, which are falling behind in regeneration by at least 160,000 acres per year. Given that the minister would have been able to regenerate more than 100,000 more acres had he had an additional $10 million, does the minister sincerely feel that the purchase of a $10.6-million, 12-seat executive jet as a kind of status symbol for the Premier (Mr. Davis) was justified in these circumstances? Under what possible system of priorities could the minister have approved of that purchase when, instead, he could have improved the regeneration program to the tune of 100,000 acres?

Hon. Mr. Pope: I was wondering, Mr. Speaker, when the Leader of the Opposition would get to that. If he had taken the time to study the information made available he would have seen that the aircraft will substantially improve access to virtually every airport in northern Ontario.

Mr. Breithaupt: How many can it land at?

Mr. Laughren: Are you planning to extend the runways?

Interjections.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Smith: I must confess, Mr. Speaker, I had difficulty hearing the answer. I think what he said was that it was better to buy a jet than to plant 100,000 acres of trees, because it would somehow speed up the access the Premier has to various parts of Ontario.

As a supplementary, may I ask the Minister of Natural Resources whether he bothered to check into the cost of renting jets for those rare occasions on which it is necessary for the Premier to get somewhere that quickly?

Has he found, as we did when we checked into these costs, that simply for the cost of interest alone on the $10.6 million -- leaving out the cost of fuel, the cost of storage, the cost of pilots and maintenance -- the Premier could have rented the equivalent jet any time he needed it to travel anywhere in Ontario back and forth every day of every year from now on, and it would still have been cheaper than the cost of the interest alone?

How can he justify buying this status symbol, this prize for having won a majority government, when in the minister's own department the forest regeneration program is lagging so badly?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, does the member want to hear the answer this time?

Mr. Riddell: Speak up, or are you embarrassed.

Hon. Mr. Pope: My friend should just listen. He should stop roaring like a bull and listen.

Mr. Riddell: Maybe you don't want us to hear.

Ms. Copps: Give him time to think.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question. The minister will reply.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, I note that the Leader of the Opposition -- I think it was in a Global News interview -- made the same case the Friday after the announcement. I replied to him that if he took the cost of his limousine and equated it to the return fare for a cab to and from Hamilton, he could virtually come to and from Toronto every day as well. I did not notice the Leader of the Opposition doing anything about his limousine.

The truth of the matter is that the jet improves the access of this government to every airport in northern Ontario. The purchase of this jet did not come out of my budget, and therefore his little equation does not hold water at all, nor do his figures about regeneration efforts in this province. The areas available to be regenerated in this province include areas that still have some species of trees to be harvested on them. Almost 40 per cent of that regenerated area still contains poplar that has to be properly harvested before we get back on the regeneration.

The member should examine our efforts through the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program; he should examine our efforts through direct expenditures on tree nurseries and acquisition of stock; he should look at what we are trying to do with the forest management agreement.

By the way, not one of the Liberal Party representatives showed up in Thunder Bay or Dorion to look at the details of that forest management agreement. They do not care about what is going on in northern Ontario. The member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) was there, but not one of the Liberal caucus showed up.

Mr. Foulds: You just lost me another 10 delegates, Alan.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, will the minister be more specific in terms of what the government expects to get, and for whose benefit, in return for the equivalent of $6.000 a day of interest just to have that plane sitting on the ground out at Malton or at one of the private airports on the edge of town? Is he saying that for $6,000 a day there will be better service to the people of Ontario? Or is it that the government really wanted to have more quick trips in and out so that Conservative ministers could go on a ribbon-cutting rampage in northern Ontario as part of their means of trying to keep in power?

Hon. Mr. Pope: Now I know why the NDP's position is deteriorating in northern Ontario, Mr. Speaker. They are even against new projects and more ribbon cuttings up there, and we are in favour of them.

While we are playing this little word game and this little posturing game, let us go back a little in history and look at a select committee on tile drainage meeting in Quebec City in about 1976. At those little meetings one spokesman from each party got up to thank his hosts. The spokesman for the New Democratic Party stood up in 1976 and said: I want to thank you, government of Quebec, for your hospitality. You know how to do things correctly in this province. You have four jet planes, and it is time the government of Ontario bought a jet plane." That man was Bill Ferrier.

Mr. Breithaupt: That just shows he was wrong too.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Smith: Since the minister seems to be satisfied with his ministry's performance in the regeneration of trees, is he familiar with the recent federal study, dated September 30, 1981, which I hold in my hand and which says, "Shortages will become widespread in the 1980s unless forest renewal performance in Ontario improves dramatically"?

When he says this new status symbol for his Premier did not come from his budget, is he not aware that it was in one of his ministry's news release that the news was released and that the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Wiseman) said yesterday that it did not come out of his budget? Will any minister own up to whose budget this totally unnecessary toy has been purchased out of?

Hon. Mr. Pope: As usual, the Leader of the Opposition has interpreted my --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Does the Leader of the Opposition want to hear the answer?

Mr. Smith: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Okay. As usual, the Leader of the Opposition has interpreted my words the way he wants. I said there was no money allocated for the purchase of that aircraft out of the forestry budget or out of any other operating budget of my ministry. I said there was no transfer of funds from my budget to pay for the purchase of that plane, and the member knows exactly what I meant; so he should not play his word games with me.

The second point is that all the aircraft in the province of Ontario fall within my ministry. That is why I issued a press release. So the Leader of the Opposition should not say we are hiding on that either. Never mind his retroactive

interpretations.

If the honourable member reads the federal study, it does say there is a Canada-wide problem in regeneration and reforestation programs --

Mr. Bradley: Particularly in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Not particularly in Ontario. I ask the honourable member to show me where that study says that. In fact, if there is a particular Canada-wide problem, we are part of it. But we have taken more steps than any other jurisdiction.

Ms. Copps: You certainly are part of the problem.

Hon. Mr. Pope: What would the member know about it? Did she go to Thunder Bay or Dorion to look at the forest management agreements? Or is she an instant expert on everything?

Ms. Copps: I went to Sudbury. I was talking with workers and owners of timber mills all the way up to and including Hearst.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Oh, she was in Sudbury. How many mills are in Sudbury? With her intimate knowledge of northern Ontario, let her tell me all about it.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, we are doing more in this jurisdiction in terms of direct government investment in nurseries, in planting trees, in forest management agreements than any other jurisdiction in Canada, and we should be proud of it and support it.

Mr. Speaker: New question, the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Smith: Ah, the promising young man is no longer promising. I must say, the jet is an incentive now to many northern ridings to shorten their runways so the Premier will not be able to land there.

Mr. Speaker: Is there a new question?

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer.

Given the recent unemployment figures, which show that for every five unemployed persons in Ontario in August a sixth person now has been added to that list in September, and given that the Treasurer usually likes to talk of having created new jobs in Ontario, is he aware of the comments of Mr. Richard Thomson, the chairman of the Toronto-Dominion Bank, who said, "Ontario outside of Toronto is in real trouble"? That is a direct quote. And is he aware of figures which indicate that outside of Toronto there actually has been a net loss of 14,000 jobs in the last year?

Given that situation, will the Treasurer tell us exactly what measures he intends to take, and has he been aware of this net loss of jobs outside the Metropolitan Toronto area?

2:40 p.m.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I guess it is the job of the Leader of the Opposition always to paint the world as a gloomy, unpromising place; he did so all during the election campaign. The people of the province did not buy the story then, nor will they buy it now.

I have to say the fact is that in September we had an increase in the number of people employed in the province, in spite of the fact that the statistics, which currently have to be reviewed by the federal government, showed 62,000 more entrants or available people in the labour force that month. That is a month when students are considering going back to university, and they tell me it is the month of the year when the statistics are least reliable for the actual number of people available to work.

In spite of that relatively large group applying or saying they were available for work, we had an increase in employment in that month. We were at 129,000 more employed people in this province at the end of September than a year ago, and we only projected 106,000.

Mr. Smith: Given that there was an increase in the number of people employed in Ontario but that there was even a larger increase in the number employed in the Metro Toronto area, where, unfortunately, there was also a larger number of people eligible for employment at the same time, is the Treasurer not aware that outside of Metropolitan Toronto, not only was there a greater number of people looking for work but also there was an actual net loss of 14,000 jobs? That and other things led Mr. Thomson to say Ontario was in trouble outside of Toronto; as far as I know, he is not running for any election at this time.

Is the Treasurer further aware that last year's figures showed that in the same monthly period, when students were going to school and all that, unemployment moved in the opposite direction to that which happened now?

Given that the situation outside Metro is serious and that jobs are actually being lost outside Metro -- even if they are being created within Metro -- does the Treasurer not think the $650 million might have been better spent to revitalize Ontario's industries and make Ontario the place where the action is instead of sending that money to Alberta, which apparently now is the only place the government sees any action?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I did not think the money went to Alberta.

The fact remains that in the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program we have created a blueprint for development that has been hailed around this province as attacking the really strategic problems, and it has been seen by other provinces as a very valid one. I am told it is being copied by the state of Michigan at this moment, because they too think it is a very good program.

I have to tell the honourable member that we are tackling the problem. Sure, there are months when one geographic area does better than another. I am intrigued to find the member quoting a person whom he really has not been supporting very much lately, a bank president.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, it is now eight months since the BILD program was brought in to try to repair the ravages that were made in this economy by this government over the many years it has been in power. Is the minister not aware that the impression the government gave, the promise the government gave, was that this was going to bring down unemployment? What is happening now? Were they misleading the public back in January when the BILD program was announced? Is it not correct that people were bilked by BILD, because it was a cynical grab for power in January of this year?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I suppose the party that saw its strength in this House decimated would think so, Mr. Speaker. The fact is, the people of this province did not think so.

Mr. Smith: As a serious supplementary question --

Hon. Mr. Henderson: That's something new for you.

Mr. Foulds: There's always a first time.

Mr. Cassidy: You really spread it around, don't you, Stuart?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Smith: Given the fact that our manufacturing sector is admittedly in some decline, given that even the Minister of Energy of Ontario (Mr. Welch) in responding to my question Tuesday, when I asked why he was investing in an Alberta oil company instead of an Ontario industry, said Alberta is where the action is, and given that some of us can remember when Ontario was where the action was, will the Treasurer not admit that the $650 million could have been much better used to create jobs here in Ontario by supporting Ontario industries instead of sending it out of the province where it will guarantee neither one additional barrel of oil nor one additional employed Ontarian?

Interjections.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I am pleased to hear the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) say he had all the money he needed.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I just make a mental note that the allocation process is on this week. I hope some other colleagues will say the same thing.

The fact is, we have done many things to stimulate industry in this province. I find it difficult to follow the consistency of the Leader of the Opposition. One day he tells us not to intervene in the private sector, sounding like the most right-wing person in the country when he hammered us last year --

Mr. Smith: I never said that. It is a question of which private sector. How about ours instead of Alberta?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: He did so. He should go back and look at last year's Hansard.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Leader of the Opposition asked a specific question. Will the Treasurer please address that?

Hon. F. S. Miller: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, why is he not the butt of your comment? He is the one yelling from his seat. He is the one who is getting his high blood pressure up. He is the one who is going to have an apoplectic stroke. Really, I suffer for him.

Mr. T. P. Reid: No one looked sicker than you last week when we talked about your resignation on a matter of principle.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I have just heard from the one Liberal from the north who cannot even run on a Liberal ticket. He has to call himself the Labour-Liberal member from the north.

Mr. T. P. Reid: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: The Treasurer knows as little about northern Ontario as he knows about buying Suncor. The Liberal-Labour tag goes back in history and tradition to the 1920s, and it is a banner I wear proudly. Besides, it drives them crazy at election time.

INTEREST RATES

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I would like a page to take to the Treasurer a copy of the report that now has been made available in Ottawa with respect to the impact of high interest rates on the housing sector.

This report indicates that 30,000 to 40,000 households across Canada are going to be in a tragic situation as a result of the high interest rates and that the owners will be forced either to try to sell their homes, walk away from their homes and face foreclosure, or else to pay a huge proportion of their income to retain their homes. That means 15,000 families are facing that situation here in Ontario as a result of the high interest rates in the situation that exists in housing in this province now.

Does the minister not agree that it is time to have a real housing program to get affordable housing in Ontario? When will we see that from this government?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, with great respect, I suspect that question would best be directed to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett), because that is his basic responsibility.

Mr. Mancini: He is not here.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I recognize he is not here. I have to tell the leader of the third party that this province has expressed its most serious concern to the federal government on the plight of these people. I did so when I attended the meeting of the ministers of finance in Ottawa in late September or early October. I expressed our concern that the federal government of this country has allowed to exist, through the Bank of Canada and through its own total fiscal irresponsibility, a state of affairs that has raised those interest rates and put people at jeopardy.

Mr. Cassidy: Given the evidence, again of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation report, indicating that tens and hundreds of thousands of other families are having to pay $300 to $350 a month more when they renew their mortgages, which indicates that families that bought homes in good faith in Toronto five years ago may now have to pay 49 per cent of their after-tax income to hang on to their homes, and given the Treasurer's own charge that the Bank of Canada is acting irresponsibly, then if the government thinks the Bank of Canada is acting irresponsibly, why does it not bring in measures in this province that will bring the Bank of Canada to bring the interest rates down?

Why does the Treasurer not begin by taxing the excess profits of the banks here in Ontario to get them on our side and on the side of people who are paying far too much in high interest rates?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Now I understand why the member left writing as a financial journalist to become the leader of the New Democratic Party, because things are not that simple. It really does require some co-operation from the federal government on a cross-Canada basis to solve this problem. The tax resources of this province simply cannot deal with the problem as easily the leader of the third party says.

2:50 p.m.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, in 1975 the Treasurer's party gave first-time home owner grants and promised an interest rate subsidy program, thereby encouraging many people to buy homes. Now that those people are in their homes, why does the minister refuse to help them stay in their homes? Why does he wish to sit back and watch many hundreds and even thousands of families having to walk away from their homes?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I wish there were simple solutions, Mr. Speaker. I have looked into the problems, and I am sure the other members have also, of individuals faced with the horrendous problem of having their mortgage payments almost doubled. Assuming they have had their houses for five years, the problem may not be so grave in percentage of income. A lot of them have made those mortgage changes within the last year and, therefore, they predicated their 30 per cent or whatever factor it was on last year's salary to find it is 40, 42 or 43 per cent this year.

There are many people with these problems who have many other debts relating to consumer loans, and they have not had the time to adjust their cash flow to put their money where their first priority is: on their homes. I suggest we have to give them this time through some mechanism that will allow them to adjust their budgets so their houses remain theirs. I cannot think of anything more important for the average Canadian than to be able to hold on to the title to his home. Obviously I have encouraged the federal government to help us find ways, and I have pointed out that Ontario is willing to help.

Mr. Cassidy: Given that there were 15,000 families in this position, whom the minister himself admits will be paying 40 or 42 per cent -- this study indicates up to 49 per cent -- of their after-tax income just to hang on to their homes, what specific mechanism does the minister have in mind? And why is it, with this crisis brewing over the course of the last five months, there has not been one action taken by the government, not one word of legislation that would put such a mechanism in place to defend those 15,000 families? Surely they need help now. What is he going to do about them?

We have been very anxious. Every finance minister has discussed this problem with the federal government. We simply have to point out to them that we will be willing partners in any program. At the same time, there are a lot of people who, through many conscious decisions, kept their homes. Life is never simple. Some of those people say, "I have solved my problem, and I am not willing to pay the tax for somebody who has not."

ELECTION SPENDING

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. Yesterday, I released to the press figures that indicated the Progressive Conservative Party spent $8 million to get re-elected in March 1981, between the central campaign, the riding campaigns and the local campaigns on behalf of the PC party. Since that was 80 per cent of what it took for the election campaigns of the federal Liberals and the federal Conservatives just over a year ago, does the Premier agree that spending by the Progressive Conservatives was excessive and represents an abuse of the democratic process in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the democratic process was affected. I never minimize the effect of programs during the course of an election campaign. I sometimes think we exaggerate the effect, whether it be commercials or whatever, in terms of how voters react. That is a personal point of view from my standpoint. My simple answer to the question would be no.

Mr.

Cassidy: In view of the fact that the Premier stands almost alone among a lot of observers across the province who do feel that the process is being abused, that, as I said, the amount of spending by the Conservatives was obscene in this campaign and that there should not be a democracy where one party is enabled to buy its way back to power because of the absence of any limits on election spending, will the Premier undertake now that before the 1985 election there will be limits put on the spending of the central campaigns by the parties and on the spending at the local constituency level here in Ontario which would be comparable with the present limits imposed on federal campaign spending under the Canada Elections Act?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think the honourable member will observe that there are some very distinct differences between the two acts. One can argue the limitations on expenditures, but one can also argue the limitations, or lack of limitations, in respect of fund-raising.

In essence, the leader of the third party can apologize whatever way he wants to for his lack of success on March 19. I have news for him. He did not lose because he did not spend more money. He lost because he did not have the policies, he did not have the commitment and he could not persuade the people of Ontario that they wanted to support a Socialist government. It was as simple as that.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary; the member for Essex South.

Mr. Martel: Why do the Tories need the money if they're so good?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Essex South has the floor; the member for Sudbury East does not.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier if he is not personally embarrassed by the expenditures listed by the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman), who spent $90,000 more for his own campaign than was spent by the three candidates in the Essex South riding. Is the Premier not personally embarrassed that one of his cabinet colleagues had an expenditure list that could be compared and called obscene?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I do not know, Mr. Speaker. I can go over into another riding -- I think it is St. David, if memory serves me correctly -- and take a look at what the Liberal candidate spent there.

I am not embarrassed by any of my colleagues or any members on this side of the House. They won because we presented the best program, the best record and the best degree of confidence in terms of leadership in this province. That is why that election was won, and not because of any fund-raising or expenditures, which the third party leader may use to rationalize his own position at the moment.

Mr. Cassidy: If the Premier is convinced that his party won because of its program and its policies, why will he not agree to making the rules of the game fair as far as the question of money is concerned?

Does he not think it is an unhealthy situation when, for example, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) received donations to his campaign from Cantrakon and 45 other corporations that are linked to the real estate industry?

Does he not think it is unhealthy when developers contributed more than $110,000 to the campaigns of large numbers of Conservative cabinet ministers and candidates across the province?

And does he not think we will have a healthier situation if limits are put on campaign spending so all this corporate money is not sloshing around and meddling in politics?

Hon. Mr. Davis: There is nothing in the legislation I know of to preclude people, in their judgement, making a contribution to the honourable member's party -- nothing whatsoever.

I suggest to the member that one of the problems with his party is that it has become so oriented to a single philosophy and support in this province; it is time he endeavoured to expand his base.

I have to tell him, there is nothing to preclude him from trying to get other people to monetarily support his party. He knows why they do not: They do not want to see it in government. It is as simple as that. I happen to share their point of view.

Mr. Speaker: A new question from the member for London Centre.

Mr. Peterson: The reality is that they both sold out: to the corporations and to the unions. We are the only honest party left. That was an aside, Mr. Speaker, and not a question.

3 p.m.

ONTARIO ENERGY INVESTMENT

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer. Can we have the Treasurer's assurance that he will table in this House very soon the Price, Waterhouse and McLeod, Young, Weir studies of the Suncor purchase for scrutiny by this House?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I would like to reply, Mr. Speaker, to the young millionaire from London who is running for the Liberal Party, because that is the way he was described in the press the other day. After that last glowing aside about the Liberal Party being the only honest party, I just had to put that in.

My answer is no, I can give no such assurance.

Mr. Peterson: Why should that be secret? There is absolutely no reason for that whatsoever, and it should have been part of the compendium.

My second question to the Treasurer is, how is this matter going to be debated before the House?

Section 2 goes on to say that "the moneys required for the purposes of subsection 1 shall be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund," which means in effect that this matter will not come before the Legislature by way of a bill.

Will the Treasurer give us his assurance that he will bring this matter into this House by way of legislation for a full public discussion of this purchase?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I have never known the member, or any other member of the opposition, to be constrained by some simple technical fact from discussing those things he wishes to discuss in an estimates debate -- in my estimates or those of my colleague the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch).

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, can I ask the Treasurer why that information will not be available, since under the rules of the House he is required to provide this information? Second, will he also table the public opinion polls on which the government must have based its decision, because it does not do anything without them?

Hon. F. S. Miller: No, Mr. Speaker; it is simply that the public opinion polls always reflect that which we do. It is the other way round. When one is right all the time, the public opinion polls show it. We do not have that problem. We do not have to look at the polls until after the decisions are made.

I did not say it would not be submitted. I said I could not give the assurance that it would be submitted.

LUMBER COMPANY LAYOFFS

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources -- and it is not about the broken promise to build a food terminal in Timmins.

Does the minister condone the actions of Wesmak Lumber Company and Chapleau Lumber Company in the Chapleau area, considering that they have completed shutting down one town by bulldozing the homes to the ground and are waiting for snow before they set fire to them, and that they are in the process of laying off workers in another community and have already issued eviction notices of 30 days' length to some of the workers?

Does the minister believe that is the way lumber companies within his jurisdiction should be allowed to behave simply because the companies are in isolated communities and have unorganized workers in their employ?

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, I share the honourable member's concern about some of these people located in his riding. I understand the issue revolves around a merger that has been proposed. Incidentally, we have received no documentation yet with respect to that procedure, but we have been advised of it.

I understand there has been discussion since the fall of 1980 with respect to the bush and nonbush workers and their employment future. The honourable member is quite right when he says there have been some layoffs in the community. I am led to believe most of those are reflective of the general market problems now, with the high inventories building up. I do understand the company has notified the workers that as soon as the situation improves it will be going back to two shifts a day. At that point, almost all the workers will be back in.

With respect to Island Lake, which is the community of most concern to the honourable member, I believe there were indications given to some of the workers in the mill operation only -- not the bush workers -- that the mill would be discontinuing its operation. I understand there have been discussions since December 1980. Since the member raised this on Monday, we have been trying to obtain more information on the plans of the company and will communicate them to him and to the workers in those communities.

In addition, we will try to prevail upon the company to do as much as they can to continue to provide that accommodation for the present and former workers. I repeat, apparently there was some discussion about getting out of these residences as far back as last fall. However, if they are not going to be used and if the workers are prepared to pay for utilities and any other expenses with respect to the continued utilization of those homes, I see no reason why that situation cannot continue. I will do what I can on behalf of those workers and the honourable member to make that happen.

Mr. Laughren: Am I correct in my assumption that timber limits cannot be bought, sold or bartered in Ontario between lumber companies? If I am correct in that assumption, is the minister not concerned that this merger was simply a method of transferring or virtually selling the timber limits of Wesmak Lumber Company without Chapleau Lumber having to buy them, knowing full well that is simply not allowed? It is trafficking in timber licences. Is the minister not concerned about that?

Will he look into the conditions under which that merger is occurring -- I do not believe it is completed yet -- and would he look into the possibility of withholding timber limits until he has assurances that the workers in those communities will be properly treated?

Hon. Mr. Pope: I will look at all those matters on behalf of the honourable member. I do not know how withholding timber limits will help any workers who are still working there. I understand there are 55 to 60 still working there and I do not know how that would help them.

I think the problem in a share purchase program or a share purchase acquisition is that there is no transfer required,

whereas if there is a purchase of assets, transfer documentation is required. The member is quite right, there is to be no value attached to the licence. Obviously, in some instances, there is goodwill allocation and it is questionable whether that is or is not related to licences. I guess that is something about which there will continue to be some controversy.

I do not know how one could prevent those kinds of allocations being made. One could do the same thing perhaps in the allocation of the depreciated value of equipment or something like that to change it. How could legislation change that? If there is an allocation of purchase price to equipment or to any of the other assets of the company, even if one does not think it is proper, how could one put himself in that position? That is the problem we have.

Mr. Stokes: I would ask the minister if he agrees with the statement that all the sawmills in Hearst and Weldwood of Canada Limited in Longlac will be forced to close down within the next five years because of a lack of sawlogs to keep those sawmills and plywood mills going. If he does not agree with that statement, can he tell me where the sawlogs are going to come from?

Hon. Mr. Pope: No, I do not agree with the statement that all the sawmills in the Hearst area will close down in the next five years. In fact, historically a number of former ministers have made great efforts to try to accommodate the mills in the Hearst area. The previous member was quite actively involved in that. I think it is true a number of smaller operations in the Hearst area are under some competitive pressure. There is no denying that. What their future holds is something about which we can only speculate.

However, there is no way that every mill in that community will close down because of a lack of wood supply. I think virtually every lumberman in the Hearst area will say the wood supply company --

Mr. Stokes: Where are the sawlogs going to come from?

Hon. Mr. Pope: They already have licences, do they not?

Mr. Stokes: No, they have volume agreements.

3:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Right. And they are operating under third-party agreements and under direct licences.

Mr. Stokes: But it is from year to year.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Not from year to year, I am sorry. There has been a change. The renewals I have issued to most of the lumber companies in the province have been from one to two years for a number of reasons relating not to the availability of wood supply but rather to the future direction we want to take in terms of forest management agreements and arrangements with the companies so that we have more flexibility. But that is not indicative of any problem with respect to wood supply. Perhaps the honourable member is hearing some of that concern.

Historically we have looked after the Hearst operators. They have had wood supply. A lot of people in the ministry have been using third-party agreements and direct licensing in trying to accommodate their needs. We do not anticipate all the lumber mills in that community closing.

TORONTO EAST GENERAL HOSPITAL

Mr. Spensieri: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. The Toronto East General and Orthopaedic Hospital asked him in January to remedy the terrible situation in its emergency department. His own Clark report of June 1981 confirmed the overcrowding in this emergency department, and on October 21 an inquest jury again cited this same problem and called for action following the unfortunate death of the 25-year-old Claire Moses. The facts are that the emergency department still books out of service more than once a week, according to Globe and Mail reports.

Given these facts, what is the minister now doing and what does the minister propose to do about the overcrowding at Toronto East General? And what further tragedies will be necessary for him finally to act?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the member has to be reminded that even when an emergency department books off service it still receives and attends to life-threatening cases. The fact that an emergency department books out of service does not mean it turns away cases where a person's life is in danger. It receives them and attends to them and gives them the priority they deserve.

Also, I would remind the member that just in the last year or so we completed a major capital expansion at the Toronto East General. I would not want anybody to be left with the impression the East General has somehow been ignored. I think the expansion, which added beds and specialty departments, came to something in the order of $50 million. So they certainly have not been ignored.

Third, the Toronto East General has now submitted a proposal, I am told, to the health council for review and prioritization with respect to their emergency department. Depending on the availability of capital funds, I would hope to be able to give it priority in the next year or two.

Mr. Spensieri: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker:

In light of the same jury's recommendations regarding paramedics, and in view of the fact that the ambulance attendant was required in this case to make a quick judgement call as to the degree of seriousness of the patient's condition, how quickly can we now expect to see the upgrading of ambulance personnel to paramedic status? It has been proved it would result in benefits to recipients of emergency health care delivery.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker. I think within the month we should be putting the final touches on the curriculum for the advanced life-support program. This will allow us to begin to train advanced life-support personnel for the ambulance system in this province under the auspices of the Toronto Institute of Medical Technology starting in early 1982.

If the member would compare this province to any other jurisdiction in the country he would find we have the best-developed, most highly co-ordinated ambulance system of any jurisdiction in Canada. Indeed, most provinces to this day, including Quebec, still do not have a co-ordinated, government-funded ambulance system.

QUEEN STREET MENTAL HEALTH CENTRE

Mr. McClellan: I have a new question for the same minister, Mr. Speaker. The minister will recall the brief submitted in December 1980 by a coalition that included the Medical Reform Group, the Ontario Association for the Mentally Retarded and the Canadian Mental Health Association, among other groups, expressing concern flowing out of the findings of the Alviani inquest.

I would like to ask the Minister of Health if he would review the medical files I am sending him now of a 26-year-old woman who has been a patient for chronic schizophrenia at the Queen Street Mental Health Centre since 1970. In particular I would ask the minister to review the massive doses of medication this woman has received over a prolonged period of time, specifically Moditen, Modecate and chlorpromazine dosages, which I believe to have been in excess of the Compendium of Pharmaceuticals and Specialties' guidelines.

Would the minister determine why it was necessary to maintain such high dosages of such dangerous drugs over so long a time despite the fact the patient had developed severe adverse reactions, according to my information, tardive dyskinesia, partial blindness, and measurable brain damage?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to take this information the honourable member is sending me, and to seek expert advice from my medical staff. I would point out to the member that in the thousands of cases that are under management on a daily basis in this province for whatever kind of malady -- psychological or physical -- physicians are called upon on a regular basis to make judgements about what is in the best interest of the patient.

With regard to the first part of the member's question, in the late spring I engaged a leading psychiatrist in the province, Dr. Heseltine, to become the executive director of mental health services in the ministry. One of the matters I specifically indicated to him, which I wanted his advice about and wanted him to look into, is the whole question of medication. There is no question that within the last 10 or 20 years the numbers and the uses for drugs have grown -- literally exponentially. We are in an age when some would argue people are receiving too much medication.

Others would say that because of some of these new so-called wonder drugs in the last 10 or 20 years, people can now be in the community leading relatively normal lives as opposed to being institutionalized. There are strong arguments pro and con. Certainly, I would be happy to have expert medical advice in my ministry on this.

Mr. McClellan: By way of supplementary, Mr. Speaker: There is a statement in the brief I referred to a moment ago saying they were concerned not with anomalies but with "what is according to inquest testimony standard practice at Queen Street Mental Health Centre." Would the minister table Ministry of Health guidelines that govern the use of psychoactive drugs in provincial mental health centres?

Will he undertake to conduct an independent inquiry, perhaps as part of the kind of public investigation that was asked for in December 1980 by a number of parties, into the incidence of chlorpromazine, phenothiazine, haloperidol and other such drugs being prescribed in excess of the safe level dosages recommended in the 1981 Compendium of Pharmaceuticals and Specialties in provincial mental health centres, and particularly at the Queen Street centre?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the member should not forget the compendium he refers to is not, and never was intended to be, a guide for hospitals and physicians. It is produced by the Canadian Pharmaceutical Association as a guide for pharmacists, but it was never intended to be an upper limit. I had some advance knowledge the member might well ask this question. I am told that in the case of one of the drugs, the compendium refers to possible doses even three times as much as some of the levels referred to, presumably, in what the member has just sent me.

Regarding one other part of the member's question about an inquiry, we had an inquiry into mental health services that went on for some considerable time. Its members travelled around the province under the chairmanship of Dr. Abbyann Lynch of St. Michael's College. I released this report about two years ago. As a result, a number of changes have already been made, including the fact I decided to reorganize the ministry's mental health services and engage Dr. Gilbert Heseltine from the University of Western Ontario as the executive director of mental health services.

I have specifically indicated to him a number of areas of interest arising out of personal concerns as well as concerns highlighted by people like the honourable member, including the question of medication.

In regard to the other part, the member has a lengthy number of Order Paper questions, included in which is the same question. I will be dealing with that as soon as I can. I would point out to the member we are not going to be able to answer all those in 24 hours. It is going to take a long time.

3:20 p.m.

BROCKVILLE PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL

Will the minister intervene and order the transfer of this patient to Centre Elizabeth Bruyère in Ottawa, which is the only French-speaking facility where this patient could possibly be kept? If not, could he make arrangements to transfer this patient to Montreal?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the honourable member's letter. I hope it arrived. It may well be that when it arrived, in order to cut down on any delay it was sent directly to the psychiatric hospitals branch for action. I will look into the matter. I take the question as notice.

Of course, a lot will depend upon the condition of the lady in question as to whether Centre Elizabeth Bruyère in Ottawa is a secure enough facility. I do not know anything about the lady's condition or whether she needs something more secure. But we will try to ensure that whatever is in the patient's best interest is done.

Mr. Boudria: I will have a page send a copy of the letter to the minister, a letter I sent to him a considerable time ago.

On the general topic of French-language services in psychiatric hospitals, I would ask the minister to recall the report on French-language services called, No Problem, Pas de Problème, by Dr. Jacques Dubois. This report made several recommendations with respect to French facilities in Ontario psychiatric hospitals, especially at Brockville. Will the minister tell us if he has acted or if he intends to act on any of those recommendations?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have acted. I would be glad to send the honourable member a copy of the statement I made at the Club Richelieu in Sudbury two years ago which definitively outlined the ministry's policies with respect to the provision of health services in this country's second official language. If the member would like some specific details on Brockville, I will be glad to get those and send them to him.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the roving Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. In view of the skyrocketing price of gasoline, can the minister tell the House if he is satisfied the best interests of the motoring public in Ontario are being served by the practice of oil companies and lessees advertising only regular prices at service stations and no other major grade of fuel being sold at those service stations?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I think it is the kind of thing that could be drawn to the attention of the federal government. It might be more appropriately registered there. On the other hand it has been traditional in the past that only one form or grade of gasoline be advertised. That has traditionally been the lowest grade.

There was a time 15 or 20 years ago, when I used to be a gas jockey, when there were only two grades. It was very easy and they simply --

Mr. Martel: You are still a jockey.

Hon. Mr. Walker: I am a man of many talents, that is all. Some of us have to know what to do at the end of a nozzle.

Mr. Smith: You stuck it to us then and you stick it to us now.

Hon. Mr. Walker: I am not going to touch that. I can say that back then it was easy to have the two grades registered because it was very simple. They were often only a few pennies apart. Now when there often are so many grades at a service station and various prices that can be attached to it, plus the fact people are still trying to figure out what litres mean, I think it is probably normal that we would only have the cost of one grade there. However, the member has raised a point and I will be glad to take a look at it.

Mr. Samis: Most new cars today use unleaded or premium grades of fuel, and the states of California, New Hampshire and New York have made it mandatory, either through legislation or the process of regulation, for service stations to advertise either on the street or with a sign on top of the gas pump. In view of this, would the minister not consider it advisable to talk to the oil companies, due to the changing nature of the automotive business, with a view to giving consumers a better break in terms of pricing and advertising?

Hon. Mr. Walker: There are still a good many vehicles in this country that make use of normal gasoline. Certainly the Chrysler cars fall into that category. It is very difficult to tell the service stations what they should be doing in their pricing patterns. It has been traditional that the lowest price has always been registered. Of course with the changes happening so frequently today, it is almost impossible to keep track of what is happening. It seems that gas prices are being adjusted almost on a weekly basis.

ASSISTANCE TO BEEF PRODUCERS

Mr. McKessock: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. On Monday the minister mentioned the assistance the government gave the feedlot operator and the feeder operator. The minister knows there are three factions to the beef industry, starting with the cow-calf operation, then the feeder and then the finisher or feedlot operator. As he mentioned, the last two of these have received assistance.

Can he tell me why the cow-calf man has not received anything as yet? Does the minister feel he is not just as important as the other two factions of the beef industry? He is definitely hurting just as badly as the other two. Can the minister tell me when he is going to announce some assistance for them?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, in response to the honourable member, I think he is fully aware of the beef program -- $40 for beef that has gone to market and $20 for each feeder. He is aware that program is costing us approximately $40 million.

The honourable member brings in the cow-calf program. Yes, we are well aware they have been left out of the program. The member could tell us the price of calves in Ontario. This year it looks as if it will be slightly under 75 cents a pound. He might tell me 60 cents, he might tell me 65 cents, but we find it is under 75 cents. Last year, the price was 81 or 82 cents a pound.

I think the honourable member would agree the cow-calf operators were not suffering until this year. We know two years ago the price was 90 cents and three years ago it was over $1 a pound, but it was the beef and the stocker man who was suffering earlier this year.

The first request I had from the Ontario Cattlemen's Association was for the beef program, which we initiated and announced. They then came back to me and asked for the feeder program, which we have put into effect.

We have the problem in Ontario that if we give money to the farmer under this program -- the problem we ran up against with the sow-weaner program that was later corrected -- and then have it taken away by the federal government, I think the member would have a hard job supporting that. We are still looking at the situation with this problem facing us.

3:30 p.m.

PETITION

HIGHWAY 527

Mr. Foulds: I have a petition signed by 200 residents of northwestern Ontario, and I believe it is self-explanatory.

"To the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows: that Highway 527 be considerably improved between mileage 30 and mileage 72; that the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly give prime consideration to completing the work necessary in order to pave the remaining portion of the highway that remains unpaved. At present, the calcium chip seal and grading treatment on this stretch of highway is unsatisfactory.

"We, therefore, beg to remind the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly that if a vehicle was in as bad condition as is this highway, the laws of this province would prevent such a vehicle from operating on the province's highways. We therefore ask for justice in the improvement of Highway 527."

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Mr. Treleaven from the standing committee on administration of justice presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr13,

An Act respecting Kleven Brothers Limited;

Bill Pr17,

An Act respecting the Society of Management Accountants of Ontario.

Your committee begs to report the following bill with certain amendments:

Bill Pr27,

An Act to revive Candore Explorations Limited.

Report adopted.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. Barlow from the standing committee on general government reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Government Services be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1982:

Ministry administration program, $3,615,000; provision of accommodation program, $62,974,000; real property program, $8,550,000; upkeep of accommodation program, $52,384,000; supply and services program, $7,966,000; and communication and computer services program, $179,000.

And resolved:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Office of the Provincial Auditor be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1982:

Administration of the Audit Act and statutory audit programs, $2,834,000.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Ms. Fish, on behalf of Mr. Shymko from the standing committee on social development, reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Colleges and Universities be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1982:

University support program, $843,943,000; college and adult educational support program, $399,064,000; and student affairs program, $102,084,000.

And resolved:

That supply in the following supplementary amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Colleges and Universities be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1982:

College and adult education support program, $4,550,000.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF MISSISSAUGA ACT

Mrs. Scrivener moved, on behalf of Mr. Kennedy, seconded by Mr. Watson, first reading of Bill Pr28,

An Act respecting the City of Mississauga.

Motion agreed to.

BURFORD LIONS' CLUB ACT

Mr. Ruston moved, on behalf of Mr. Nixon, seconded by Mr. McKessock, first reading of Bill Pr15,

An Act to revive the Burford Lions' Club.

Motion agreed to.

HOMES FOR ABUSED SPOUSES ACT

Mr. Peterson moved, seconded by Mr. Mancini, first reading of Bill 152, Homes for Abused Spouses Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill to provide for the ongoing funding and establishment of interval and transition houses for abused spouses. It would apply a $15 surcharge on every marriage licence inside the province of Ontario.

Last year there were about 67,000 marriages in the province of Ontario; so this would provide about $1 million that would go directly to an apparatus set up under this bill to provide establishment and ongoing funding for homes for abused spouses.

Members will be aware that a number of these houses in this province are in very serious financial trouble. This, of course, is not the total solution to their funding problems, but it would provide a steady and ongoing source of funds. I think it is a most reasonable proposition -- in fact, quite a modest proposal -- to assist in guaranteeing some continuity.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I would just like to indicate to the House that there is a slight change from what is printed on the Order Paper for 8 o'clock this evening. The thirty-fifth order, which is the adjourned debate on the motion for adoption of the first report of the standing committee on regulations and other statutory instruments, will be called before the thirty-fourth order.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr. G. I. Miller moved resolution 9:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government recognize that economic pressures are forcing many farmers in this province out of the agriculture industry and that the government take immediate steps to set up short- and long-term financial programs so that the agriculture industry will grow and prosper and compete equitably with agricultural financial assistance programs in other provinces and give our young farmers an opportunity to get back to farming.

3:40 p.m.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to be able to bring forward this resolution and encourage this government to play a stronger role in the welfare of our agricultural industry, the most important industry we have. It is important not only to rural people but to urban people too, because they provide jobs through the industries. I think Massey-Ferguson Limited is a good example; when it closed down, it showed how it can affect an urban area. We want to make those points clearly today.

I am sure every member of this House is well aware of the seriousness of the financial difficulties that are forcing many farmers in Ontario to abandon the agricultural industry. If there is to be any hope at all that the deterioration of an industry that has been the backbone of Ontario for generations will be arrested, governments at every level must take immediate steps to set up programs to assist farmers in this time of crisis. The prosperity and competitiveness of our agricultural industry are essential to the future of this province.

I realize that all segments of Ontario society are feeling the impact of current inflation and high interest rates. Nevertheless, although private individuals and the business community in general are experiencing serious difficulties at this time, we must all be particularly concerned about Ontario's agricultural industry. There can be little question that a thriving agricultural industry is vitally important not only to the health of our economy but also to the health of our people, for, whatever else may change, quality food will always be a necessity of life.

Many of our farmers find their very livelihood threatened by the high interest rates that apply at present. These interest rates, combined with the rising price of farm equipment, fuel and other operational costs, are making farming a very risky occupation indeed. The task force that is going around the province was in Ancaster on Monday of this week, and I might indicate that there were 19 presentations, all pointing out the dire straits that many farmers and machinery dealers are in.

A recent report, The Future of the Family Farm in Ontario, found that the main area of concern to farmers was the high cost of production. In fact, 90 per cent of the farmers surveyed expressed this as their main concern, and the report concluded that the low financial return from farming was a major threat to the future of the family farm in this province. I might point out too that corn, which was selling for $4 a bushel, is now down as low as $2.80, and that is going to be another tremendous burden on the farmers now harvesting this year's crop.

For a very long time now farmers have struggled to gain economic and social stability, and many farmers have obtained income security only upon retirement after they have sold their holdings. Economic pressures have forced literally thousands of farmers to leave farming, and many thousands more have had to supplement their farm income with off-farm employment, at least on a part-time basis.

Income stability is more important today than ever before because of price uncertainty. Farmers cannot be expected to continue to invest in new machinery, buy more land and sustain all the other production costs in an effort to increase production unless and until they receive some guarantee and assurance that increased production will not lead to short-term surpluses, which ruin prices and force them into bankruptcy.

The fact that the future of the family farm is in jeopardy is dramatically underlined by recent figures on farm bankruptcies in this province. In 1979, Ontario had some 64 bankruptcies out of Canada's total of 124. By 1980, the figure for Ontario had jumped to 122 out of a total of 220 in Canada.

Only the other night in the Ministry of Agriculture and Food estimates the deputy minister indicated that you can multiply those bankruptcies by 10 and perhaps be fairly close to the numbers who are abandoning their farms or leaving farming. That indicates the multiplying effect it has.

It is interesting, and depressing, to compare bankruptcy figures for Ontario with those of Quebec. That province had 43 bankruptcies in 1980, compared with Ontario's 122. Between January and September of 1981, Ontario had 112 bankruptcies, compared with 35 in Quebec.

While the situation with respect to bankruptcies is very serious, it tells only part of the story, of course. It does not give any indication of the number of farmers who are struggling to avoid going under or who have been forced to sell rather than lose everything they own in their vain battle against forces beyond their control.

The strange fact is that real growth in Ontario's agricultural industry has increased more rapidly than has been the case in other Canadian provinces. However, while more money passes through the hands of our farmers, less stays with them in the form of net income.

Recently, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture presented its annual brief to the Premier (Mr. Davis) and cabinet. In this brief the federation stated that it has been aware for some time that the government of Quebec provides farmers with a more varied and generous financial support program than that provided to the farmers of Ontario.

We are not trying to compete with Quebec; we would just like to be equal. We are not saying Quebec farmers should not have those programs; we are just saying we have to recognize the needs of Ontario farmers in our agricultural industry.

The brief continued:

"In Ontario, we have the natural advantage of better soil and climate. Ontario farmers are as well, if not better, trained and skilled in their craft as Quebec farmers. The question then arises, why in 1980 did Quebec farmers have an increase in realized net income of approximately 2.3 per cent, while Ontario farmers had a decrease in realized net income of 23 per cent?"

Before I continue with the comparison of the situation of the Ontario farmers and their fellows in Quebec, I want to point out that Ontario is the only province in Canada, other than Prince Edward Island, without some kind of interest subsidy program -- and even Prince Edward Island provides grants to its farmers.

However, the direct contrast between this province and Quebec is particularly dramatic. Little wonder that Ontario farmers are envious of their counterparts in Quebec who have access to a generous provincial farm loan program. The interest rates on Quebec farm loans are determined by government regulation. However, the rates are attractive to lending institutions in much the same way as the interest subsidies are attractive to farmers of the province.

Under the Quebec program, interest subsidies are primarily concentrated on long-term financing in the form of mortgage loans and chattel mortgages. Under the scheme, farmers are able to borrow up to $250,000 as individuals and $450,000 as groups, for a period of 15 to 20 years. Interest rates on these long-term loans fluctuate, and they are set twice a year at the prevailing prime rate plus one half per cent.

However, subsidies are sent to farmers which reduce the rate of interest on the first $15,000 to 2.5 per cent a year. On the next $135,000 of the long-term loan to the individual farmer and on the next $185,000 of a loan to a group, subsidies reduce the interest rate to something like eight per cent annually. In this way, individual farmers can borrow up to $150,000 at a comparatively low interest rate, while groups of farmers can borrow up to $200,000 at low rates, although they must pay the prime rate plus one half per cent on the balance of the loan.

Quebec farmers who have mortgages from the federal Farm Credit Corporation can receive provincial subsidies which reduce the interest rate on the first $15,000 of such federal loans to 2.5 per cent annually.

Ontario's Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) has himself admitted to the Ontario Federation of Agriculture that Quebec has a richer farm support program than this province. I think we have pointed that out to him many times. He stated, however, that one important reason is that Quebec receives $1.8 billion in federal equalization payments, while Ontario has to pay out $1.5 billion.

My colleague the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) has already raised this matter in the House and has questioned the Treasurer's figures. It is his understanding that figures on federal agricultural expenditures show that, in 1979-80, Ontario received $263 million, compared with Quebec's $200.5 million, and that, according to a federal survey of all provinces for the 1980-81 fiscal year, Ontario received the greatest amount of federal agricultural dollars, $335.8 million, compared with Quebec's $210.6 million. However, on the provincial level, Ontario agriculture received $182 million, while Quebec's agriculture received $367 million.

3:50 p.m.

It is interesting to compare provincial expenditures on agriculture as a segment of the total provincial budget. In Ontario, in 1980-81, expenditures on agriculture were forecast at $184 million, or one per cent of the total budgetary expenditures of $16.8 billion. In Quebec, the agricultural budget was $370 million, or 1.84 per cent of its total budget expenditures.

One can see they take agriculture seriously in Quebec, while in Ontario I do not think they are really too concerned; they leave it to so-called free enterprise.

Often, when times are difficult, it is possible for farmers to survive through a crisis by working a little harder or by improving their operating techniques or equipment in some way. However, inflation and current high interest rates have produced a situation in which our most effective and efficient farmers, those people who have tried the hardest and who have been willing to undertake the necessary investment risks to increase their production and productivity, are the people who are most seriously threatened, because the burden of their loan payments has become overwhelming as a result of interest rates that hover above the 20 per cent level.

Farmers have done their very best to follow the advice of the provincial government and the banks. Those who have tried to improve their farming operations by following the most up-to-date methods of cultivation and farm management find themselves on the brink of bankruptcy as their operating costs outstrip farm cash receipts.

In other words, Ontario's best and most productive farmers, those who have tried their utmost to improve their operations, are suffering greater hardships than less efficient or less ambitious farmers who have smaller debts, less training and more flexibility in their production choices.

Unless something is done, and done quickly, to change present trends, we may find ourselves with an agricultural industry that is in the hands of less efficient farmers as our most up-to-date and efficient farmers leave the business, to be replaced by small-scale, labour-intensive agricultural operations. If that happens, inevitably food prices will rise and quite possibly food quality will suffer.

I brought this resolution forward because of my concern for Ontario's agricultural industry in general and my desire to represent to the best of my ability the riding of Haldimand-Norfolk in particular. Agriculture is very important to my riding. More than 90 per cent of the South Cayuga area, for example, is prime agricultural land. Heat units in the region are the second highest in Canada.

The members may be interested to know that, since the first historical records, the township of South Cayuga has been recognized for its agricultural potential. While the township contains only about 13,500 acres of land, its soil for centuries has been renowned for its richness.

I believe it is absolutely essential that we strengthen our rural communities by preserving our prime agricultural land, keeping it in production and making every effort to encourage our young people to remain in the smaller communities rather than gravitating to the large urban areas. This cannot be done unless governments recognize and attempt to deal with the basic reasons why our agricultural land is going out of production at such an alarming rate. That is why I have proposed this resolution.

I am calling upon the government to recognize the economic pressures that are forcing many farmers in this province out of the agricultural industry, and urging the government to take immediate steps to set up short-and long-term financial programs so that the agricultural industry will grow and prosper and compete equitably with agricultural financial assistance programs in other provinces.

I might add that across the border in the United States, I understand that money is made available to many areas in the area of nine per cent; and they have good agricultural programs. This is what we are competing with.

We must give our young farmers an opportunity to get back into farming. I might point out to the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Henderson) that I suppose the average age of farmers in Ontario would be well into the fifties. Our young farmers who are graduating from agricultural schools want an opportunity to get their hands on operating farms. We should be encouraging that so we can provide employment for our young people and give them a share of the action in Ontario.

While such a resolution may appear to deal only with the needs of one sector of society, surely everyone will realize that any measures that will assist the agricultural industry in a meaningful way inevitably also would have a beneficial effect on the consumer market. Obviously, if the agriculture industry of the province is maintained at a successful level, more food will be produced for the domestic market, which will reduce the necessity of importing food supplies on a large scale.

I might point out that we import more than we export, and that is the wrong direction for us to be going, particularly in a part of Canada where we have so much potential. For those reasons, we are trying to encourage the government to be more generous and to assist an industry which would be so beneficial to everybody in Ontario and Canada.

How much time do I have left?

The Acting Speaker Mr. Cousens): You have four minutes remaining.

Mr. G. I. Miller: I would like to reserve that for summing up.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the objective and the content of this resolution are worthy of support, and we shall support them. The timing of its coming forward for debate in the House is a little unfortunate in that we have just been thrashing through this very issue for hours in the estimates. However, it may be useful that we should focus on it once again here, because I have had no impression that we have really broken through the insensitivity and the lethargy of the government in a way that would cause them to come forward with some sort of a program.

With the minister and the distinguished graduate from the University of Guelph, that expert in agriculture at his side, listening, perhaps the two of them will be able to focus in and get some action.

Ralph Barrie, the president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, has pointed out that in every year during the last decade there have been about 1,000 farmers who have left agriculture in the province. He and some others have engaged in speculation as to what is likely to be the figure of people leaving agriculture today in view of the problems. Figures as high as 5,000 have been cited. I suppose nobody will know until we get through this period and we have some actual statistics, but there is no doubt that it is serious.

Usually, as the honourable member who has just taken his seat has done, we point to bankruptcy as being the indication of the problem the farmers face. For a moment I want to indicate how, while bankruptcies may be the tip of the iceberg, this really gives no indication of the measure of the crisis out there.

As has been pointed out, there were some 122 bankruptcies in Ontario throughout 1980. It is up another 19 per cent so far this year. Farm bankruptcies grew by 90 per cent in 1980 and another 19 per cent this year.

However, the point we have to take note of, again as Ralph Barrie has pointed out, is that for every farmer who is bankrupt, there may be 10 farmers who have held a forced sale to get whatever reasonable return they can on their equity before it totally disappears. People who are more knowledgeable on a daily basis than myself of the exact situation in the rural areas tell me that there are maybe another 10 farmers who are resisting holding a forced sale because of the fact that prices today are low and if they sell now they are not going to get a "reasonable return on their equity" before they get out of the industry.

There is another aspect of it. We all start this calculation with the bankruptcy figures, and then we multiply it by the number of people who are holding forced sales, or resisting forced sales and hanging on by the skin of their teeth, so to speak. But there is another aspect of it which I was not aware of until a few days ago when we discussed it in the estimates. That is, these figures on bankruptcies are again only a tip of the iceberg of those who have gone into receivership.

These statistics from Statistics Canada are statistics of farm bankruptcies only in those instances where they have been taken into court. My information is that there are an even greater number, how much greater I do not know, of what one might call privately arranged receiverships that do not get recorded but that are tantamount to a farmer getting out, bailing out with whatever he can get out of his remaining equity.

4 p.m.

In short, it is a very serious situation. The more I try to wrestle with what might be the solutions to this situation, the more I am puzzled by the difficulty in coming to grips with just how great the proportions of the crisis are. We have endless arguments going on these days between the spokesmen for the farm circles on one hand and the spokesmen, for example, of the banks on the other hand and the government tending to chime in with them. The farmers say it is very serious, and the others say only one per cent of the farmers really have a problem.

That brings me to this independent survey, which is at a verbal stage; and, as I quipped the other day, a verbal report on an independent survey is not worth the paper it is written on. What has happened, so we have discovered, is that the minister -- and this really must be a spectacle to see -- is in dialogue with the Minister of Agriculture from Ottawa. Just imagine the two of them sitting down and airing a dialogue on the problems of agriculture.

The two ministers had a dialogue a week or so ago. Out of it there came, apparently, the need to impress upon Gene Whelan that there is a serious problem. He does not happen to have the facts himself; so the minister instructed his deputy, who is a hard-hitting, knock-heads-together gentleman, and this man is now surveying the banks and the liquidation companies to find out exactly how bad the situation is. He has come up with a verbal report to the minister, and the minister has passed it on to us, suggesting there are no more than about 950 farmers in trouble.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: One per cent.

Mr. MacDonald: One per cent. Okay; 950 is roughly one per cent of the number of farmers who are in trouble, which is roughly 10 times those who happen to be in bankruptcy. I do not know how long this independent survey will go on. I am not sure what will come out of it. From what we have heard so far, the minister has come to the tentative conclusion, and I suspect it will be the definitive conclusion, that the proportions of the problem are not very great: only one per cent of the farmers are in trouble.

However -- and this is the amazing thing about it -- even if he came up with the evidence that it was a serious problem, that is not why he is seeking the evidence. He is seeking the evidence, not to get action here in Ontario, heaven help us, but to put a little heat under Gene Whelan to take action up in Ottawa. In other words, he is, once again, trying to get the feds to do the job.

I agree with the minister that, as far as interest rates are concerned, the problem originates in Ottawa. So when we agree on it, let us not continue to repeat this ad nauseam. But what I follow through with and insist on is that, if that problem is creating serious difficulties for Ontario farmers, there is an obligation on the Minister of Agriculture and Food and the government, which was willing to do a lot of things when it was seeking the farmers' votes, to go out and at least ease the pain somewhat. That is what it is not doing.

As has been pointed out by the member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. G. I. Miller), Ontario is the only province, other than Prince Edward Island, that provides no subsidies on the burdensome level of interest rates today. In Prince Edward Island, they have grants instead of subsidies; so Ontario is the only province that is doing virtually nothing in this field -- in fact, let me take out the word "virtually" and say it is doing nothing in this field.

Mr. Pollock: We spent $45 million on beef supplement.

Mr. MacDonald: I am talking about subsidies on interest rates. The member should wake up at the right time after he has heard what I said. There is nothing on subsidies on interest rates. The net effect of this -- and one can argue on the details and get buried in the details; this is again something I put into the estimates --

Interjections.

Mr. MacDonald: Is somebody disturbed over there? There are so few of them over there to get disturbed. They will have to magnify their disturbance to make any impact anywhere.

However, the point I want to draw to members' attention is not only what the government is not doing now, it is what the government has not done for years. It is magnificently illustrated in the statistics from Farm Credit in the Canadian Financial System, a document of relatively recent date put out by the Farm Credit Corporation. I have forgotten the exact date; I suppose if I took the time I could find it. It is another glossy publication.

The Acting Speaker: One minute.

Mr. MacDonald: This is the clincher to show how this government has done nothing. They have been offered a lot of programs by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. They have done nothing in the past; they have done nothing now.

Here is the situation -- and I will take two or three provinces to illustrate my point: The amount of outstanding credit to farmers in Quebec is $891 million, for an average of $17,312 per farm in outstanding credit extended by the province; in Nova Scotia there is $68 million outstanding from the provincial government, for an average of $11,724 per farm; in New Brunswick there is $34 million out in credit, for an average of $9,189. And so it goes, province after province. I do not have time to give them all to the members, but let me give Ontario's.

The Acting Speaker: Honourable member, your time has expired.

Mr. MacDonald: Thirty seconds, Mr. Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: I gave you notice.

Mr. MacDonald: May I finish my sentence?

The Acting Speaker: No, you may not. I gave you one minute. One sentence can go on.

Mr. MacDonald: No, it will not go on.

One thousand one hundred and ninety-nine dollars as compared to $17,000 -- that is Ontario.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You are a bit of a tyrant, but I respect you.

Interjections.

Mr. Watson: It is the Liberal government in Ottawa that is responsible for the economic conditions we have.

Mr. G. I. Miller: A typical government response.

Mr. Watson: The member for Haldimand-Norfolk moved that "the government recognize" -- and I know when he got up he started to say the government of Ontario. I do not know whether he says that when he goes home or not, but certainly most of the subjects included here concern the government in Ottawa, as I will outline.

Let us look at the national economy, which the member's federal friends have given us. We have chronic inflation and high interest rates right across the country.

It seems years and years ago, but really it was less than five years ago, in 1977, that the prime rate in the country was just over eight per cent. I think members will agree it was nearly three times that 1977 rate this summer. There might have been a small excuse for these rates had we succeeded in bringing down the inflation rate but they did no such thing. Inflation has just kept going hand in hand with interest rates: eight per cent in 1977, 10 per cent last year, heading for what? Thirteen per cent next year? It is anybody's guess.

Interjections.

Mr. Watson: On second thought, we have one thing to be thankful for: inflation has not kept pace with interest rates or we would be looking at more than 20 per cent inflation.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Watson: Mr. Speaker, I am having problems with the interjections.

I think the only way we are going to get a handle on things in this province -- and not only agriculture -- is through fiscal restraint. We have been practising it for some time, and I would say it has been working in this province. As a percentage of the gross provincial product, the provincial deficit is going down. It was 2.2 per cent in 1977 and it is 0.8 per cent now. By comparison, the federal debt represented 4.4 per cent of the gross national product in 1977 and it is still at that level. Again, I suppose we can be thankful for small mercies, that it has not gone up, at least in percentage of the GNP; as a lump sum it is certainly going up.

4:10 p.m.

If we compare the deficit to revenues, which is what most people have to do, in Ontario the deficit is just under nine per cent of provincial revenues. At the federal level, it is a whopping $13 billion deficit and that is more than 25 per cent of revenues. No wonder they do not have any money for the Farm Credit Corporation. They are up to their necks supporting the national debt. Perhaps I should say they are up to our necks supporting the national debt.

I would like to remind this House of some of the points the Premier (Mr. Davis) made at the Premiers' conference last August. He said, and I am paraphrasing, anti-inflation strategy must promote employment and economic growth by increasing productivity. We cannot indulge in a short-run strategy using increased unemployment which will result in reduced investment or reduced agricultural output. It will only make matters worse in the long run. He also said the fight against inflation must not be borne by the unlucky few. From the direction things have taken since then, I do not think the federal people have been listening; I do not think they heard a word in Ottawa.

I would like to take a minute here to say a few words about some of these other provincial programs that have been mentioned. If we look behind the hype, some interesting facts start to emerge. Just before the last provincial election in Quebec, for example, a whole lot of glossy stuff was printed about the agricultural programs. Now the election is over and that capital program is out of funds. The 21 cents per foot for drainage is no more. In fact, in Quebec one will find they are getting out of the loan business and going the same route that Ontario has been using for some time -- that is, the interest subsidies like those for the drainage program, loan guarantees and other programs.

As a former agricultural representative in this province I can tell this House that programs like that worked and are acceptable to the farmers of this province. They are not straight giveaways, but farmers really do not want straight giveaways anyway. They have only put a floor under farmers at critical moments. The fact remains that over the long term it is the federal government that has to fix the economy. No province, not even Alberta, can keep defending its economy against the fiscal antics of the federal Liberals.

Mr. Ruston: You should be ashamed that you got up and made remarks like that. I am glad you have left. The people of Kent county must be very happy.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Huron-Middlesex has the floor.

Mr. Ruston: You ought to be ashamed of yourself. I will send your speech back to Kent county.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, I am more than a little disturbed that the minister and the parliamentary assistant sat and carried on a private conversation during the last three speeches that have been made on this most important resolution.

Then I listened to the last speaker and I simply cannot believe he would make some of the comments he made. He obviously does not take very seriously the crisis situation in Ontario in the farming industry. If it is entirely under federal jurisdiction I would like him to tell why there are very few farmers in the other provinces who have gone bankrupt compared with the number in Ontario. Why are the farmers in the other provinces not going bankrupt? If he can answer that question he had better stand up and take back some of the things he just said.

Mr. Speaker, I went into Hanover yesterday morning to present a brief to the task force established by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture to look into the crisis situation we have here in Ontario in the farming industry. I sat the whole day listening to briefs presented by county federations of agriculture, by cattlemen's associations, by the Ontario Retail Farm Equipment Dealer's Association and by realtors. It would astound one to hear the sad story they had to tell yesterday.

When the committee asked a county federation what percentage of farmers they felt had gone bankrupt or were forced to sell before they went bankrupt, they said 20 per cent and they said that was a conservative estimate.

Then a realtor informed the committee he would venture the guess the figure was closer to 40 per cent. He said: "I will give you an example. I handle real estate in part of Grey, Bruce and Huron counties. I have 10,000 acres listed now. I could pick up another 10,000 acres at the snap of my fingers. I would dearly love it if the committee would jump in the car and come with me. I will take them for a drive between Chesley and Paisley, an eight-mile stretch of road, and show them 2,000 acres of land with a for-sale sign at every gate and no buyers."

If this is under federal jurisdiction, why is it we are not getting that same kind of report from every other province? It is because every other province has taken the responsibility to see its farming industry remains viable. They have all implemented low interest relief programs for their farmers because they realize the importance of the farming industry in their provinces. Why does this government not realize the importance of the farming industry? Do they realize that Ontario's agriculture is worth about 54.4 billion annually?

About one third of Canada's agricultural output comes from Ontario. The value added in this province by Ontario farmers is greater than any other primary industry, including mining, and ahead of any single manufacturing industry. Twenty per cent of our population work with jobs connected with the food and the agricultural industry. Agriculture ranks as the top primary goods producing industry in this province.

When we consider that only four per cent of our people are farmers we see how tremendous a contribution they make. Believe me, they have made it with very little government help in this province. Now they need assistance similar to that for other industries such as the auto industry and the pulp and paper industry. One can name them -- any industries the government has endeavoured to help. But when it comes to the farming industry they turn their backs and are not prepared to give any assistance.

Let me share with the members a brief that was presented to that task force yesterday by the Huron County Federation of Agriculture which is very much in line with practically every other brief that was submitted before that task force:

"This task force could very well be providing farmers a last chance to state publicly and peaceably the desperate economic crisis we are facing. Now that this task force has been under way for a couple of weeks, you are no doubt hearing similar concerns expressed by farmers and agriculturally related industries from different areas and producing a variety of farm products.

"We hope that if enough people express the same concerns often enough, politicians will finally get the message and act. High interest rates, high input costs and low commodity prices are killing us. What a mass of contradictions our governments are. Our Premier can afford $10 million for a private jet. The auto industry has received hundreds of millions of dollars in interest relief and direct grants. Farm equipment manufacturers receive huge grants. Millions can be spent to purchase oil companies. Yet we are told there is no money available to aid agriculture, the major industry.

4:20 p.m.

"Many farmers are in their present financial circumstances because they modernized, enlarged and consolidated their farming operations. They were encouraged to do so by the advice of the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, the lending institutions and the teaching institutions. All quarters have been encouraging farmers to become more efficient and have equated efficiency with getting bigger and having more sophisticated equipment. This costs money. What was feasible at eight or 10 per cent interest is no longer feasible at 20 to 25 per cent, and previous commitments cannot be erased.

"Whatever ideas politicians may have for dealing with matters other than the economy is not our prime concern. We must have an immediate lowering of interest rates. Both governments share a responsibility for this problem. Other provincial governments have offered lower interest rate programs for farmers. There is no reason Ontario cannot provide a comparable program.

"The equalization payment program offered by the federal government should be accepted by Ontario. No excuses offered by the provincial government for not offering similar agricultural economic programs to farmers, comparable to other provinces, are acceptable.

"The federal government is responsible for setting the interest rates and providing an overall economic policy for the country. When its policy is having such an adverse effect on such a vital part of this country's economy, it is its responsibility to provide relief. Both governments have shown a callous lack of concern and commitment to the agricultural industry.

"All types of farming are being hit by the present high interest rates, not only those with no marketing boards or marketing boards with no price-setting powers, but farmers working with agency-powered marketing boards are feeling the crunch. It has just taken a bit longer to hit.

"Many talk of young farmers being hard hit. Think further. What about those with 15 to 25 years and longer invested in time, labour and money in their farms? They are being forced to borrow against their equity to survive. Imagine you were an urban dweller going to work but receiving no wages and being forced to borrow against your pension plan, home and other assets to cover your living expenses with every sign pointing to the fact you would lose all. This is the situation farmers are in.

"In light of the present economic situation, we cannot recommend that anyone enter this business of farming. We must have immediate and long-term commitments to agriculture from both provincial and federal governments.

"The marketplace must return the cost of production plus a reasonable profit. We must have a commitment from government that it regards agriculture as an important industry. We must have a long-term credit program with a massive infusion of capital to refinance the federal farm agencies, and this capital must be available to agriculture at not over 12 per cent interest.

"An Ontario government program should be started which would encompass such things as tile drainage loans, startup programs for beginning farmers or interest programs for farmers similar to those of the other provinces. The present economic situation does not allow Ontario residents to purchase farm land or to farm it."

I will not go on. There is a little more here, but they did end their brief with big bold letters at the bottom, "No action, no farmers, no food." I think that is something the government had better start thinking about over there. It is going to answer to its consumers if they have to pay more money for their food because of the shortage of supply here in Ontario.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this resolution put by the member for Haldimand-Norfolk, particularly because I spent my early years as a farm boy in the very riding represented by the member. For those who think I only know about growing vegetables underground, I should say that I spent the first 18 years of my life on a farm and I often hark back to those days.

I will continue with some of the points my colleague was trying to make before he was summarily dismissed from the debate and told to sit down.

I noticed when I read the resolution -- I read it several times before I dared get up and speak -- there is absolutely no mention of interest rates. I thought: "Is the member trying to get the message across here that interest rates are the problem without saying they are the problem? If that is the case, why would he not want to talk about interest rates in the wording of the resolution?"

I did not know what the reason was and I did not want to make any scurrilous assumptions about the member, who represents my former home. I could not help but think, though, that just maybe the member was a little worried about expressing dismay at the policies of his federal counterparts in Ottawa. I know the member for Haldimand-Norfolk is not suggesting only interest rate problems face the farmers today. There are many others as well.

In his resolution he makes two basic points: first, that economic pressures are forcing farmers out of agriculture, and second, that the government should set up both short-term and long-term programs in order to allow our farmers to compete with farmers in other jurisdictions. That is the meat of his resolution. When the member for Haldimand-Norfolk first said the present system is going to force the efficient farmers out of business and leave the inefficient ones in farming I thought he had made a mistake until I started to think about it.

I assume what he means is that the efficient farmers are the ones with a lot of equipment, perhaps a lot of buildings, high mortgages and high total borrowing such as mortgages. Those tend to be the efficient farmers in the province. If that is what he means, and I think it is, then I suspect he is right. Those very efficient farmers will be driven out of business and we will not have as efficient a sector in the province as we should have.

Like a lot of people, when I think of the farming sector I think of the small farmer, the family farm. Many years ago economists used to debate about whether farming should be free enterprise or whether there should be more government involvement and to what extent the actions of one farmer benefit himself but overall will lead to problems. For example, that is why they set up marketing boards -- to protect farmers as a whole from oversupply. However, if one farmer could break the marketing boards that farmer would be better off because of the amount that farm will produce.

It seems to me the cultural values and lifestyles that exist on small farms are worth retaining. They make up a valuable part of the rural mosaic in Ontario. We do not want to lose that. I think that is terribly important, not just for Ontario but for Canada as a whole. If we are going to retain that we have to encourage farmers to go to agricultural colleges, to come back to the farm and encourage young farmers to start new farms, to buy the farms of those who are retiring. That is not going to happen if the present policies continue. I suspect the member who put this resolution would agree it is a double-barrelled responsibility between the federal and provincial governments.

I know the alternative to all those small family farms out there is agribusiness. When we have that degree of vertical integration by the large food chains it does not serve any of us well. The consumer will not be better off, the farmers themselves will not be better off and that is what will be left.

Mr. McNeil: Where is the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell)?

Mr. Laughren: More to the point, where is the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Henderson)? He should be here listening to these pearls of wisdom.

I suspect th