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

October 23, 1986

33rd Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L053 - Thu 23 Oct 1986 / Jeu 23 oct 1986

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

LIQUOR CONTROL AMENDMENT ACT

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

LIQUOR CONTROL AMENDMENT ACT

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

AFTERNOON SITTING

VISITORS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TOBACCO TAX

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

MINISTRY HIRING

NURSING HOMES

WISHART LIBRARY

HUNGARIAN REVOLUTION

ARTS FUNDING

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

MINAKI LODGE

ARTS FUNDING

GAS UTILITIES

CONSUMER WEEK

ORAL QUESTIONS

PAY EQUITY LEGISLATION

TARIFFS ON SOFTWOOD LUMBER

NURSING HOMES

PAY EQUITY LEGISLATION

PRIVACY RIGHTS

LEAD LEVELS

PROPERTY REASSESSMENT

MINAKI LODGE

SALE OF PAPER MILL

COLLEGES OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY

BRUCE PENINSULA NATIONAL PARK

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

TRANSMISSION LINE

HAMILTON HEALTH FACILITY

ARTS FUNDING

TABLING OF INFORMATION

PETITION

VENTE DE MOULINS À PAPIER

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

MOTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ONTARIO ENERGY BOARD AMENDMENT ACT

LOI DE 1986 SUR LES COMPAGNIES DE PRÊT ET DE FIDUCIE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

RETAIL SALES TAX AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

CORPORATIONS TAX AMENDMENT ACT

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

LIQUOR CONTROL AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Shymko moved second reading of Bill 133,

An Act to amend the Liquor Control Act.

Mr. Shymko: From the years I have served in public office, I think what I will have to say now will be shared by all the members present today, namely, that private members' hour, such as that held today, is one of the most sacred moments for any member of the Legislature or member of Parliament. The. reason is that, for a moment, we can dissociate ourselves from partisan differences and, in the complexity of our system, introduce motions, resolutions and bills that demand an objective analysis and a conscientious decision of support or opposition by all honourable members.

During moments such as these, sometimes even caucuses split over issues and one has free votes instead of total support.

An hon. member: Isn't that something.

Mr. Shymko: My honourable colleague says, "Isn't that something."

That is precisely the nature of private members' bills, that we can vote on our own private, individual convictions and the feelings we share on certain issues. The visitors in the public gallery today, young people, are witnessing, as are the members of this Legislature, a very historic moment. If the bill I am introducing today is passed on second reading, and if, by some stroke of divine providence, destiny or fate, the government sees fit that this private bill should go for third reading, we will be witnessing a historic moment in Ontario because, although this bill may have unanimous support from all of us here today, it is the government which sets the agenda for third reading.

In my concluding remarks, I will be appealing to everyone present and absent that we give serious consideration to the historic nature of this bill, which for the first time will require that all manufacturers and producers of liquor products in this province list the chemical ingredients of their products on the labels of their products. No jurisdiction in the world is doing this today. Ontario is first. I hope the precedent we will be setting will be followed by other jurisdictions, particularly that of the federal government. It will have a major impact on the lives and the health of our citizens.

The information on these ingredients is readily and freely available from our laboratory at the Liquor Control Board of Ontario. It has provided leadership and innovation internationally. Its chemists and scientists discovered carcinogenic substances that no one in the world knew existed. I refer to ethyl carbamate, discovered by our laboratory in 1979. Talking about coverups, if the members have read the report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Testing and Marketing of Liquor in Ontario, they will realize that information was withheld from the public and from the authorities, according to Mr.

Justice Osler, because of a collusion between the LCBO management and the liquor producers of this province.

Members may have read some of the articles in the media that say this bill will never pass because politicians are guided by only one law: political expediency; to hide things, to cover up, say the media. I have faith in our elected officials and in each of the members present that the decision we will be making today will be based on conscience and our concerns for the health of our people and not on political expediency. We will not continue any coverup. I remind the members that if this bill does not pass and it dies on the Orders and Notices, indeed it will be a coverup.

Having visited the laboratory for almost half a day, I decided to prepare this bill. It was a decision that was made relatively recently because, having spoken to Dr. Karumanchiri, the chief chemist and the present acting director of the laboratory, I could not believe the chemical brew we find in our liquor products; they can only be described as "Love Canal cocktails."

When one looks at the Liquor Control Act, which defines our products, one reads that wine, for example, is described as being "obtained by the fermentation of the natural sugar contents of fruits, including grapes, apples and other agricultural products containing sugar, and including honey and milk." The ingredients almost give one the impression of subliminal advertising that this is indeed the land of milk and honey. Why would one not drink milk? Sugar, honey, milk.

10:10

Take a look at the definition of liquor. It says it "includes any alcohol in a form appropriate for human consumption."

Mr. Dean: Is there any form that is appropriate?

Mr. Shymko: We will talk about it; just wait until the member hears the list.

In describing alcohol, the only reference to a chemical content that is non-natural is to the fact that it includes synthetic ethyl alcohol. That is the only reference.

Let me read what our consumers are consuming into the temples of the human spirit, if I may so describe our bodies. It includes the following ingredients: synthetic dyes, eight varieties of them; sodium; sorbic acid; methanol; nitrosamines, cancer-causing ingredients that existed in beer in very dangerous levels right up to 1980, six years ago; and ethyl carbamate. Let us remember the famous coverup of ethyl carbamate, which was discovered in our labs in 1979; one of the scientists was even removed from doing experimentation because they knew and warned about it, and it was squashed because the interests of the liquor lobby superseded the welfare, lives and health of our people.

Mr. McGuigan: What government would do that?

Mr. Shymko: I wonder what government would indeed do this. I am being nonpartisan. One should read the report before making any remarks about a government, because the authorities were kept from being aware, at least according to Osler's report. I do not know anything more than this, but let us not become partisan in this issue, I beg members.

There is diethylene glycol, another word for antifreeze. Do members know that antifreeze is allowed today in our liquors? It has not been withdrawn. For example, 10,000 particles per billion of antifreeze are allowed as a maximum level, according to the LCBO guidelines; so it has not been eliminated. Ethyl carbamate is also still allowed in various levels of maximum guidelines. There is arsenic, potassium ferrocyanide, tartaric acid, volatile acids and sulphur dioxide.

It contains the following metals: iron, zinc, copper, cadmium, lead, cobalt, coumarin, antimony, selenium, silver, mercury and asbestos. Members will recall the famous problems we had with asbestos years ago. It contains agricultural chemicals that are unknown today in terms of pesticides, fungicides and other elements, fluorine, ethyl alcohol, methyl alcohol, sucrose, glucose, soluble sulphates, ascorbic acid and hydrogen sulfide.

The other new substances that, according to the report, are going to be tested this year are calcium, fungicides, pesticides, polyvinyl-pyrrolidone -- whatever that means -- dimethyl pyrocarbonate, etc. It lists all of that, indeed a chemical brew.

My dear colleagues should read this report. Time does not allow me to go into the details of the report, but it is a true adventure in mystery, absurdity and contradictions in a coverup that beats any novel I have read lately.

There is information that I will not call false, but I will say it is misleading, in the conclusions that were reached by this royal commission. That misleading, incorrect information is why we have this bill. When I read this report, I said, "There is no way we will allow this conclusion to be reached."

On page 102, the report says that today we have "sophisticated methods" of detecting all these chemicals and detectable substances and "the spread of a consumer movement and of the law governing product liability has made" the public "increasingly aware of the possibility of the existence of health-threatening substances in food, including liquor."

That is not true; in food, yes, but excluding liquor. For years, while our government mandated that we should know the ingredients in cornflakes or in a can of beans, the liquor industry was exempted from listing its ingredients.

I do not have to tell the members that our laws say that if you go to a licensed establishment, a restaurant, you can consume up to 40 per cent liquor versus 60 per cent food. We tell people to consume even more than 40 per cent. I think the arrangement and the proportion now is 50-50. Yet we do not protect the public, in the consumption of that 40 to 50 per cent, through its being aware of what it is consuming.

As well, more than 20 per cent of our population suffers from various allergies. I do not have to remind my honourable colleagues that ingredients such as sulphite, which was recently discussed in the media, can instantaneously kill an individual who is allergic to it. There is evidence in reported fatalities in the United States and Canada of individuals who were allergic to the substance, drank a glass of wine containing it and died within a matter of a few hours.

We can no longer tolerate the coverup that we as lawmakers have allowed for the past decades in preventing the consuming public from being told what it is consuming in liquor. That is all I am requesting, that in our jurisdiction we exercise the responsibilities we have towards our citizens. I refer to the report again: "The protection of consumer interests generally in this province is undertaken by the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations of the government of Ontario." It will be a cop-out if we say it is for another jurisdiction. This is our jurisdiction.

The LCBO is the world's largest purchaser of alcoholic products, having made and reaped profits for the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) of approximately $604 million last year. We understand the implications of the lobby this indirect tax brings to us, but this should not in any way affect our conscientious responsibility to the consuming public and its health.

Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it if the time that is left could be retained for my concluding remarks.

Mr. Speaker: The member has reserved four minutes and 21 seconds.

10:20

Mr. Swart: I am pleased to rise to speak on the bill before us, I suppose for two reasons. First, as a consumer critic, I feel some responsibility in this regard. Second, I come from the Niagara region, where the very best wines are produced. I want to see the public is assured of this by the very fact that from the labels it will know that there are no additives put in the wine and that it is real, pure stuff that comes from the Niagara region.

I compliment the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko) for introducing this bill. I will say immediately, as he would suspect, that I support it in principle. I recognize, as I am sure the member does, that this does not provide the whole answer to the problem. Certainly, we must have strict supervision and enforcement of the quality and openness on the part of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario with all its testing and so on, but this does add very much to the right of people to have pure food to eat and pure liquid products to drink.

I am a little confused about the bill where it says it would "prohibit manufacturers from selling a product unless all of the chemical ingredients contained in the product," and it goes on to list those, "are identified and listed on the labels of the product in such measurements as set out in the board guidelines regarding the composition of beer, liquor, spirits and wine." Perhaps the member in his final four minutes will explain that a little further. I presume what is meant there is that the guidelines would also be set out and the manufacturers would then state where their product fits within those guidelines.

Although it does not provide the whole answer to the problem of ensuring that we have pure liquids to drink, it does enhance a principle that I believe is sound; that is, the right that people should have to know all the ingredients that are in the food and drinks they consume. That is true with regard to food but only to a limited extent at present with regard to alcoholic beverages. Therefore, this very much fills a gap. There certainly is a great need.

I have here a comprehensive feature

article on additives which was carried in Chatelaine a while ago. It starts off by saying:

"Food in one sense has never been safer than it is today" -- the

article deals with what we drink as well as what we eat -- "thanks in part to additives that preserve and protect it. It has also never been more permeated by chemicals that colour, flavour, bleach and texturize it. Government regulations are stricter now than they were in the past, but many potentially dangerous additives, some of them suspected carcinogens, are permitted. The amounts usually are small, but no one yet knows the cumulative effect of small dosages over a long period. How can we protect ourselves?"

The first paragraph reads:

"Canadians consume an estimated five pounds of chemical food additives per person per year. Hundreds of these additives are still untested and not yet limited under federal food and drug regulations -- or thousands if one includes 2,000 artificial flavours and flavour enhancers which the government does not consider food additives because they are used in infinitesimal amounts."

We do not know what we are consuming in many areas. We did not know what we were consuming in the wines in this province, especially with ethyl carbamate. I was intrigued by these comments on page 101 of the report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Testing and Marketing of Liquor in Ontario:

"Government officials were not informed when unwanted substances were detected, nor were members of the consuming public. When random testing of products already on LCBO shelves gave unsatisfactory results, suppliers were generally advised and requested to take any necessary action. Such products were seldom removed from the shelves unless such action was requested by the suppliers."

That shows a real, conscious failure on the part of the LCBO and the government of that time to ensure that consumers were receiving a safe product.

If there is one thing the royal commission has done, whether much of it is acted on or not, it is that it has highlighted the problem that exists, particularly at this time, with regard to the chemicals that are so prevalent in our society and, of course, so prevalent in the treatment and processing of the food and drink we consume.

Nobody wants to be an alarmist. But while we concede that, by and large, most of what we consume is reasonably safe, we are into this whole area, and into it a long way and it is going to get much worse, of new chemicals that are not tested, whether it is to preserve the food and drink, whether it is to change the colour or whether it is to change the taste. We can include in this not only chemicals but also such things as radiation.

Because of the complexity of the whole issue, people have a right to expect (1) that their government will protect them and (2) that it will be open and will require that all those who produce these products at least let the public know the ingredients in those products. That may not help somebody such as myself very much, but if the ingredients are listed for beverages and foods, it gives an opportunity to the scientists, druggists, chemists and nutritionists in our society, who know what these chemicals are and what the effects of them may be, to organize action to assure us that if there are any harmful chemicals in those drinks or foods, they will be removed.

I conclude by saying that the recommendations in this report of the royal commission, which are fairly substantive as they should be after what was found, are not enough. We must have legislation with regard to alcoholic beverages and regulations with regard to the food we consume that fully disclose all the ingredients in those products. This bill at least goes part way to assure that happens; therefore, I support it and will be voting in favour of it.

10:30

Mr. South: I congratulate the member for High Park-Swansea for introducing this very important piece of legislation, which I recommend our party support. However, we have some concerns in regard to it. In looking at Bill 133, we must remember that we address an issue of national scope and that the member is attempting to address a national issue through provincial means.

I submit that it is possibly premature to amend the Liquor Control Act as he suggests. I want to mention that the report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Testing and Marketing of Liquor in Ontario, the Osler report, was recently presented to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter) and distributed to all members of this House.

Mr. Justice Osler recognized in his report the seriousness of public disclosure of information in the public interest. We all have to agree that the lack of proper communication within the Liquor Control Board of Ontario was the main ingredient of what could have been a very serious public health problem.

As a result of the disclosures ultimately made and the involvement of the health protection branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare, a program was negotiated and put in place whereby the task of testing products for ethyl carbamate was divided between the health protection branch and the LCBO's laboratory. The procedure has been tested on more than one occasion, and it appears to be working satisfactorily.

Finally, the report clearly enunciates where the responsibilities lie in this regard. Throughout the commission's hearings, and especially when considering some of the final submissions, it was obvious that effective co-operation between the health authorities, the marketing agencies and the manufacturers of alcoholic products was essential.

The problem posed by the discovery of ethyl carbamate in many products could have been contained, if not solved in very short order, if representative agents of manufacturers in this country and the health protection branch had been advised of the findings at an early stage. The question of acceptable standards could have been addressed if the combined expertise of the health authorities, the winemakers and the distilleries could have been tapped.

It is with this background of the Osler report in mind that we should turn to an examination of the member's bill before us today. First, I would like to point out that after his lengthy and comprehensive investigation, Mr. Justice Osler did not recommend such disclosure. However, submissions were made to him arguing in favour of such measures. This is an important consideration in the discussions here today. This is an issue that must be addressed on a national basis primarily because it is the federal government that enacts national standards under the Food and Drug Act.

Further, because alcoholic beverages are manufactured and distributed on an international-interprovincial basis, it would be chaotic to require different labelling in each province and territory. What is required is consistent standards across our country. It would be a little chaotic and disruptive to have provincial-only labelling.

Clearly, as the Osler report states, there is need for concerted and cohesive action on the part of all liquor boards. This is already happening. The 12 liquor agency chairmen from across the country are meeting to discuss the recommendations of the Osler report. In January, LCBO chairman Jack Ackroyd assumes the position of president of the Canadian Association of Provincial Liquor Commissioners. He is planning to put the issue of disclosure of contents on the commission's first agenda.

The federal government takes the position that such a measure would be national in standard. There has been correspondence between our Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and his federal counterpart.

The problem with my honourable colleague's bill is that it is premature because it precludes the study of proper

definitions of some of the ingredients that have to be disclosed. In the world today one of the things that has happened recently is the fantastic advancement in our ability to analyse. Many years ago, when I first became engaged in sanitary engineering, we spoke in terms of parts per million. A part per million is one pound in 100,000 gallons.

Mr. Runciman: Is that what Ed Norton was, a sanitary engineer?

Mr. South: I thank the member for Leeds. We all can visualize a pound. We all can visualize 100,000 gallons; that is five household swimming pools. Thus, for most of us, when we speak in terms of parts per million we have a grasp, a sense, a gut feeling of what it is all about. But very quickly, with the advancement of modem technology, we were talking in terms of parts per billion. That is one thousandth what one part per million is. Then it was parts per trillion, which is one thousandth of that. We are now talking in terms of parts per quadrillion.

Do the members of the House have a sense for that? I am lost, because they tell me a part per quadrillion is one second in 30 million years. That is getting close to infinity; it is getting close to molecular size. Personally, I have lost a sense of its magnitude, a sense of its importance. One of the problems we face, even though we can list these ingredients, is in determining the fineness or the infinite smallness of the material we want to indicate.

My earliest days of imbibing anything alcoholic go back to when I was very young. My father used to make dandelion wine, and one of the features of the preparation of dandelion wine -- I do not know whether it added anything to it -- was that my father had a hole dug in the garage, where the dandelion wine was stored in bottles for a period of time.

Of course, as young children, we were intrigued. We were seeing movies at that time. They did not have talkies then, when we used to go to these movies; they were only a nickel. There were no talkies, but westerns were very much the movies of the day. You would see the saloon scene, and the villain would walk in and swat back a good dose of something or other that was in a glass.

We were trying to re-enact these western scenes as children would do; so into the corner --

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): Order. We would have liked to hear the end of the story, but your time has expired.

Mr. Runciman: I am pleased to rise and speak on the private member's bill introduced by my colleague and good friend the member for High Park-Swansea. The member is someone for whom I have a great deal of respect. He cares deeply about issues such as this, and he does not hesitate to jump in where others fear to tread.

When we talk about the contents of alcoholic beverages, I am reminded of the story of the Women's Christian Temperance Union having a banquet a number of years ago across the hall from a dinner being held by the distillers' union. Somehow there was a mixup, and the temperance union received the dessert that the distillers' union was supposed to receive. It was a spiked watermelon.

The headwaiter was aware of the error after it had taken place but did not say anything. He waited until the dinner was over and then went to the waiter and said, "Did you have any complaints about the dessert?" He said, "No, I did not, but I did notice that all the ladies were putting the seeds in their pocketbooks."

10:40

That story spells out somewhat my quandary with respect to this issue. There are pros and cons to knowing the ingredients of some of these products. All the members of this House are aware that the Osler royal commission was established to discover why some products found on LCBO shelves across this province had continued to contain unacceptably high levels of ethyl carbamate despite concerns expressed within the board over a period of years.

When the current government was advised of this situation, it felt it had fallen upon a political bonanza. The minister in particular made a number of outrageous and irresponsible comments that, according to many in the Ontario wine industry, did serious damage to their holiday sales during the Christmas-New Year's period, traditionally the best time of year for these companies.

As Osler pointed out, the minister's scare tactics were totally uncalled for. I quote from page 105: "Ethyl carbamate is a known animal carcinogen, but although it is treated as a potential carcinogen for humans, no satisfactory evidence that it actually affects humans is known to exist." The minister jumped out into the hall at the first microphone placed in front of him, as he is wont to do, and started making off-the-cuff comments that inflicted serious damage on our provincial industry.

The government's hopes for political gain were dashed by the results of the inquiry, which found, and I quote from page 101 of the study, "Government officials were not informed when unwanted substances were detected." All that hullabaloo in the hope of embarrassing the previous administration was unfounded.

I want to echo the concerns of my colleague the member for High Park-Swansea with respect to the government's inaction to date on the recommendations from Mr. Justice Osler. As the justice indicated, the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, as the world's largest purchaser of alcoholic beverages, should be taking the initiative with respect to standards for such beverages. To date, we have not seen any action on that front.

I am prepared to support this bill because I share the concerns of my colleagues and other members of this House. However, I do have some reservations that should be placed on the record.

I have a concern about this type of requirement applying only to Ontario and to imported products. As the member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. South) pointed out, products of other provinces fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government. In the long term, this could have a negative impact on the competitive position of Ontario products. On the other hand, an argument can be made that it might prove to have a positive effect as discriminating buyers may well prefer products that list the ingredients. It is a grey area. We do not know what impact it might have, but it is something that should be looked at closely before the government makes a commitment.

Another concern is that the listing of ingredients will in effect provide the recipe for these products. I am told this could prove to be damaging from a competitive standpoint for the Ontario industry.

In

summary, although I have some reservations, I urge members to support this bill. If nothing else, it sends a signal to the government that the concerns arising out of the Osler royal commission require attention now, not two, three or five years from now. I commend the member for High Park-Swansea for bringing this matter to the attention of the House.

Mr. Charlton: I too rise to support second reading of Bill 133. I congratulate the member for High Park-Swansea for bringing forward this bill. I will go a little further; I congratulate him on his conversion. I am not going to get wrapped up in a debate as others have today about standards and questions of science. For me, this bill is a piece of right-to-know legislation, nothing more and nothing less.

As my colleague the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) said, this does not necessarily protect the health of the people of this province. It allows people to know what they are consuming, what those products contain and, if they wish, to pursue the question of whether they think that is healthy for them. Therefore, it is right-to-know legislation we are dealing with here today.

I remind the member for High Park-Swansea that in April 1982 we debated a private member's bill of mine here in the House, a safe drinking water act. The member's party stood and blocked it; so it never came to a vote. Some years ago we debated a rather comprehensive bill on right-to-know legislation that would have included this and a whole range of other things; again this was blocked by his party. Unfortunately, because I have not looked at the record, I cannot point to whether the member was one of those who stood to block the bill, but his party did, and I did not hear any complaints from him at that time.

I wanted to point out that this is not the first time we have dealt with these kinds of issues and that this Legislature could have resolved this situation a long time ago.

Having said that, I will get back to the positive aspect and the support for this bill today. As the member for High Park-Swansea and the member for Welland-Thorold have said, we have a situation where hundreds of thousands of different chemicals are being used in this society on a regular basis. Standards for those chemicals tend to get set at very low levels, and our governments and scientists tend to tell us that at that level there is no possible harm, even over a lifetime, from consumption of that chemical.

On the other hand, everyone readily admits that if small amounts of 50,000 different carcinogens are allowed in the things one consumes and breathes and takes in through the skin, no one knows the effects of the combination of different carcinogens on a human body in the long run.

We have to allow the people in this province and this country to realize the extensive and expanding number of dangerous chemicals they are being exposed to and consuming in some way, even though in small quantities; they are in soap products, in the air they breathe and in the things consumed through their mouth.

That is not going to answer all their questions about whether the products they are eating are healthy, but it would enable the public to understand the breadth of the problem that faces us and to start asking the questions the average person is not asking today unless there is some specific local circumstance such as we learned of very recently here in Toronto in the media: the lead in the soil in Riverdale and some areas around there. In general, unless there is some local circumstance such as that which frightens people, questions do not get asked.

When people drink milk or eat canned corn, they do not think about the potential harm of the pesticides, herbicides or other chemicals used in processing that might be contained in those products and that they might be consuming. They do not think about it; so the questions do not get asked.

10:50

This bill starts to address the problem of the public's right to know and its right to ask questions about what it then knows.

The member for Frontenac-Addington talked about uniform standards. Of course, we want uniform standards right across Canada when we actually get to the stage of setting standards for the content of certain chemicals in consumables -- in food products, alcohol products and so on -- but we have not had any action from the federal government.

If Ontario, being the largest market in this country -- it does not matter whether we are talking about food products, alcohol products or whatever -- sets a standard for the labelling of those products, that standard will become the national standard or at least the minimum national standard. The federal government may try to outdo the Ontario government at some point by creating an even stiffer standard, but that is not to the disadvantage of Canadians; it is to the advantage of Canadians.

In the absence of federal standards and federal labelling legislation, I suggest that legislation here in Ontario, because we are the largest market in the country, will ultimately force the issue of labelling of alcohol products right across Canada. It is a small step -- and I want to emphasize that in this bill -- because it deals only with alcohol products.

I have an additional concern -- it is not a criticism of the bill; it is a concern -- and we should think about it. If the member feels the same concern that I do once I have expressed it, he should ask that this bill, if it passes, go to committee of the whole House while we pursue this question. I am concerned with the word "ingredients." I am concerned because it may be a legal loophole. I do not know. I am not a lawyer, and I am not enough into legal hitches to be sure, but the word "ingredients" has always meant to me those things that are put in.

With food or alcohol, that would force the manufacturer to identify the pesticides, herbicides or whatever the case may be that are in the drink or food.

My concern is whether the use of the word "ingredients" provides a loophole through which chemicals produced in the process may slip through -- chemicals that are not intentionally added by the manufacturer but are a product of the processing; not just contaminants or byproducts, but products of, in this case, the fermentation or distillation processes. I understand that ethyl carbamate is a product of the fermentation process; it is not an ingredient. That is my concern; it is not a criticism. We should try to answer that question. If this bill is going to be allowed to proceed to third reading, we should answer that question before it receives third reading.

Having said that, I support the bill. It is important that we get on with this question of the right to know in Ontario. It is important that the people who live in this province have the right to know what is in those products and at what level, whether they are consuming alcoholic beverages, food products or any other beverages so that as a society, they can start asking the questions that relate to people's short-term and long-term health. Those questions will never get asked if people do not know what is in the products they are consuming.

M. Shymko: Tout d'abord, je voudrais répondre aux questions du député de Welland-Thorold sur le système de mesures.

Je voudrais indiquer qu'il y a un système de mesures qui existe en Ontario. Ce que je trouve tragique, c'est qu'il y ait 17 éléments, que j'ai lus au début de ma présentation, dans l'introduction de ce projet de loi, qui ne sont régis par aucune mesure, aucun contrôle de la part du gouvernement fédéral. Mais nous, nous avons un système de mesures et un système de contrôles.

Ce système existe. Ce que je trouve tragique, c'est le fait que la vente de ces produits ait augmenté, les profits des producteurs aient augmenté, le revenu pour la province de l'Ontario, pour le trésorier, ait augmenté. La variété de produits contenant des éléments chimiques augmente chaque année et le niveau de danger augmente en plus. Qu'est-ce qui diminue? C'est le nombre des employés qui diminue, en même temps que le standard et la qualité de la vie et de la santé de nos citoyens. C'est ça qui diminue.

Je voudrais vous informer, Monsieur le Président, sur la question du carbamate d'éthyle. C'est un ingrédient, un élément qui est cause du cancer, ce qui a été bien soutenu par des recherches. Vous savez, Monsieur le Président, qu'au cours des derniers cinq ans, plus de 150 produits de bière, d'alcool et de vin auraient été soustraits à la consommation de nos citoyens si les exigences du docteur Karumanchiri avaient été prises au sérieux, il y a cinq ans.

Des milliers de gens ont reçu des doses de cette substance cancérigène -- pas seulement deux fois le niveau permis. Le niveau fédéral a été introduit au mois de décembre 1985. Le maximum est de 400 parties par milliard. Ceci est le maximum, et le minimum est de 30 pour le vin et de 400 pour les liqueurs.

Nous savons que pendant cinq ans, il y a eu, en Ontario, des produits qui ont été vendus, qui ont été bus, alors qu'ils contenaient un niveau de 240 fois le maximum et on ne savait absolument rien à ce sujet-là.

I am disturbed if somehow the remarks of the member for Frontenac-Addington indicate that this bill will be killed on third reading. The liquor lobby is the strongest lobby in this province, and I am fighting a lone battle. I beg the House for support.

I received a call from an individual known as the government relations officer of Hiram Walker yesterday, who said there was no consistency in labelling. I will tell members, Hiram Walker has accepted the standards of Ontario for the contents of its product for all of Canada. For him to say they have a problem because they will have to have one set of labels for Ontario and other sets of labels for the other nine provinces is a cop-out. The labels will be made for their product according to the very strict standards of Ontario, where the federal government has no standards over 17 chemicals.

They make sure that the quality of the product has them, and they certainly are consistent; so it is a cop-out.

There are other elements. If we owe anything, it is our responsibility to make the health of our people a foremost priority in this bill.

The Acting Speaker: This ends the debate on ballot item 19.

Mr. Hayes: As I understand it, the House has agreed to proceed with resolution 63 standing in my name and not with resolution 49, of which I have given notice. I therefore ask the House for unanimous consent to proceed with resolution 63.

The Acting Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Our party is willing to give unanimous consent to proceed with this resolution, but we serve notice that our caucus would much prefer that the honourable member follow the time notices set out in the standing orders of the Legislature and serve the proper notice, so that we do have an opportunity properly to prepare our case for the debate.

11:00

The Acting Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr. Hayes moved resolution 63: That in the opinion of this House, recognizing that this year and next year the farmers of this province are facing the worst financial crisis since the Depression and it is now estimated that one third of all farmers with Farm Credit Corp. loans are in jeopardy, and recognizing that traditionally Ontario provides substantially less financial assistance to its farmers than other provinces do, the government of Ontario should, through supplementary estimates this fall and the new budget in the spring, increase its overall financial assistance to agricultural producers to at least the average level of the other provinces in Canada.

Mr. Hayes: I would like to thank the other two parties for their co-operation. I realize this is really a last-minute type of resolution. I appreciate the co-operation in allowing me to present this bill here today. I hope I will have the opportunity to give longer notice in the future when I present any other resolutions or bills.

I present this resolution today because it is a must if we are going to meet the needs of farmers today. I realize the problems in the agricultural industry are not just in Ontario but across Canada. However, it is very upsetting that the province in which we live, with agricultural sales of more than $5 billion, is the least supported and is ranked lowest, with 18 cents of assistance provided per dollar of food production.

I know the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) will continue to boast about increasing the budget and will continually tell us that the previous government has been underfunding the agricultural budget for years. The farmers in Ontario are tired of those stories. They want to know what the government is going to do, not what the previous government failed to do.

Farmers are very proud and they do not want to depend on subsidies. They do not want so-called handouts from governments. What they want is a fair price for their commodities and their labour, which I will talk about a little later on. What this government has to do immediately is to increase its budget and its overall financial assistance to agricultural producers to at least the average level of other provinces in Canada.

When I ask for support on this resolution, I want everyone to understand that moneys can be made available to use for programs to help farmers on the land, not some of the Band-Aid programs that we have seen that encourage farmers to leave the land. Because of the immediate crisis in agriculture today, it is imperative that we immediately expand and improve some of the existing programs, for example, the Ontario family farm interest rate reduction program and the beginning farmer assistance program.

I want to touch on just one issue, namely, the OFFIRR program. I have some reservations about whom it is really supposed to help. I have a case of a farmer in my riding with a family farm. The farm has been in the family since the early 1800s. Today this person applied for the OFFIRR program. From one of the remarks that was made, the reason that individual was turned down was that OFFIRR was targeted to those operations which would be able to provide a family living under normal circumstances. I would like someone in here today to tell me what are normal circumstances today in the agricultural industry.

I have another one where a farmer was turned down because he was working at an off-farm job to try to keep the family farm going. He and his wife were both working. He was turned down because he was told his operation was not a viable operation. This is why I question some of the programs. Some of the programs do good for some people, but I wonder whether it is not another case of encouraging them to leave the farm.

A few years ago, these same farms were viable and could provide a family living. Why are these farms not viable today? Why are they not able to provide a family living today? It is simple. For the last seven or eight years, farmers have been receiving less for their products than it costs to produce them. The bottom line is that farmers have been hit with high interest rates, escalating costs of production and low commodity prices.

Over the years, some farmers were able to build up surpluses and some of them had their farms paid off, but now those people are using up those surpluses and producing food at a loss. They are holding on, hoping the market will turn around. Then there are those who started farming seven to 10 years ago who were not able to build up surpluses. Those people are gone today because of some of the large mortgages and low commodity prices.

This brings me to another point. On the one hand, we have one program to encourage young people to start farming; and on the other hand, we have a program to encourage those already farming to leave the farm, the farmers in transition program, for example. No doubt it has helped some people. What bothers me are those cute little window-dressing phrases such as, "How to land and keep a job." This is a course for which the FIT program will pay tuition.

What we should be saying to farmers is, "You have been producing cheap food for too long and we are going to assist you in getting a fair price for your commodities and your labour." Then the phrase should be, "This is how to keep your land and continue farming."

About 75 to 80 per cent of farm families have off-farm income now, which is used to support the family and subsidize food production. Where are these other jobs that the FIT program is going to train farmers to take? If we want to create jobs, let us boost the agricultural industry and free those farmers from those off-farm jobs, so they can do what they want and know best how to do: that is farm, and farm full-time.

I ask for support on this resolution because of the crisis in the agriculture industry that we are faced with right now. We are in a situation now where we cannot afford not to expand and improve on existing government programs, even though I have to look at these as Band-Aid solutions that help in some cases. However, they do not address the real problem, that is, low commodity prices.

11:10

The real solution to the problem in agriculture today, as I and many farm organizations and consumers see it, is supply management. I know some people are against marketing boards because they feel they restrict the free enterprise system, and there is on the other side the large corporations that lobby politicians. It is quite clear to me what the free enterprisers are looking for now. They are looking to squeeze out the little guy and make the family farm extinct, and they are doing a very good job of it.

The family farm is the backbone of this country. As I mentioned earlier, farmers are proud. They are proud of their land and they love their land, but thousands of them have been discouraged. They have gone bankrupt and have been foreclosed. The stress on family life has been enormous. Wife and child abuse cases abound and suicides are at an all-time high. Because of low prices, farmers have been forced to produce more. Some farmers felt that by doubling their production, they could double their incomes. Land was pushed to its limits and prices became further and further depressed.

I support very strongly the moderate-sized family farm because these people not only take care of the land to make a decent living, but also want to preserve it for future generations. There are some people who think we need larger and fewer farms and they feel that company-owned farms would produce food at a lower cost. If our goal was to produce cheap food, that might be the case. We should take a good look at how large corporations view a natural resource such as agriculture. Look at what has happened in our forest industry. All they did was rape the land for short-term profit.

If we believe in the family farm, then the farmers should receive a decent and adequate income. This has to be done partially by supply management. Some feel that supply management means higher prices. In a free market system, there are times when the product is very cheap and times when it is very expensive. When prices are low, farmers lose money and they go out of business. When the prices are high, others rush in.

With supply management, prices can be stable and farmers can plan their operations. At the same time, they take care of and preserve the land. I would like to give an example. This comes from one of the farm magazines. The title of this little clipping is, "Cereal Sob Story Soggy." It says: "While Canadian millers and bakers have managed to delay a proposed hike in domestic wheat price, cereal prices have shot up 20 to 40 cents. The baker and milling industry has warned that raising the domestic wheat price from $7 to $10 a bushel would raise food prices as far as breakfast cereals go.

"This seems to have happened anyway. Wheat-based cereals such as shredded wheats and brans have jumped sharply. Jim Whitelaw, sales manager for the Ontario Wheat Producers' Marketing Board, is angry about the increase because the millers, bakers and breakfast cereal makers warned a House of Commons committee that a price increase would put them at a competitive disadvantage with US products and force them to reduce production and lay off staff."

Then he goes on to say that they have gone ahead and done it anyhow. He said the price of a box of one shredded wheat product has increased from $3.19 to $3.60 and the price of one type of bran-based cereal went to $4 a box even though there is less than a nickel's worth of bran in it.

People are afraid that if the farmers get a decent price for their commodities and their labour, they are going to put prices way sky high. This is one little example of the people who are really causing the prices to be high, with the farmers getting nothing in return and no credit for it. Actually, what is happening is that these people can raise their prices by 20 to 40 cents, but the farmer is lucky to get a nickel return for the product.

I would like to stop at this time and give some of the other members an opportunity to speak on the bill. I hope they are supportive of my bill.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Essex North reserves the balance, which is four minutes.

Mr. McGuigan: I am happy to participate in this debate this morning on this very important subject. I wish to congratulate the member for withdrawing his original bill and presenting this one today, which I believe speaks more to the problem than the other did. It presents a specific solution to a specific problem. It is one I would like to argue with on some other occasion; because he has mentioned ways perhaps I will touch on it as we go on.

I first want to point out that the record of the Ontario government is not nearly as off base as we would believe if we look at some of the superficial figures. Much is made of the comparison of provincial budget expenditures per farmer. Sometimes Ontario's figure looks a little small, but one has to remember that in Ontario we have a very large number of census farmers. The member mentioned that we have many farmers who are part farmer and

part industrial or professional worker. On a commercial farm basis, farms that produce $10,000 or more in gross sales, Ontario performs much better.

As to estimated 1985 provincial government assistance per farm of more than $10,000 in sales, the Alberta figure is $20,243; the Saskatchewan figure, $18,757; the Manitoba figure, $20,489; and the Ontario figure, $18,270. We are not far behind the other provinces.

As important on a program basis, Ontario's assistance is far more effective. There is a much-heralded $2-billion Alberta farm program, but it is not a direct transfer of $2 billion; it is a guarantee on loans of up to $200,000 per farmer, with interest rebates down to nine per cent. The estimated direct Alberta government expenditure on this program in 1986-87 was approximately $40 million. They do not talk about $40 million; they talk about $2 billion in Alberta.

11:20

The enhanced Ontario family farm interest rate reduction program that was recently announced provides interest rebates on loans up to $260,000 and interest down to eight per cent. Estimated provincial government expenditures for 1986-87 are $60 million. That is $40 million more than in Alberta. Over three years this program will transfer $150 million into the pockets of Ontario farmers. Moreover, the program does not have a contingent liability on this province.

Compare this with the Saskatchewan loan program of $25 an acre at six per cent on a per farm basis. A Saskatchewan farmer would have to farm 1,560 acres to receive the same subsidy payment as the OFFIRR rebate that an Ontario farmer receives on $260,000 with interest rates at 11 per cent. As the average Saskatchewan farm is 952 acres, again the Ontario program is a more effective transfer for both the Ontario farmer and the Ontario taxpayer.

Again as an example, in 1985, total government expenditures to Saskatchewan farmers totalled $591.6 million, of which $546.4 million was provided by the federal government; of this, more than $210 million were crop insurance payments. Out of the percentage of 1985 Saskatchewan net farm income, total expenditures were 84.4 per cent, and federal government expenditures were 78 per cent of provincial net farm income.

Similar federal expenditures as a percentage of provincial net farm income for Alberta, Manitoba, Quebec and Ontario were: 67.6 per cent for Alberta, 28.7 per cent for Manitoba, 18.7 per cent for Quebec and 10.9 per cent for Ontario. By comparison, provincial expenditures as a percentage of provincial net farm income in 1985 were: Quebec, 22.5 per cent; Manitoba, 7.7 per cent; Saskatchewan, 6.5 per cent; Alberta, 16.3 per cent; and Ontario, 12.3 per cent.

One really has to get down and dig into the figures to find out what is the effective level of support between provinces, and Ontario's position is one to be proud of.

Nevertheless, I would support the member in saying that, in this global economic agricultural war that we are in, fighting with the European Community and the United States community, if we are going to preserve our agriculture, we have to put in more money. The Agricultural Institute of Canada just put out a figure yesterday saying that we need to inject $4 billion into Canadian agriculture in order for it to survive.

The real issue becomes not a question of whether we are going to do it, because we will do it; it becomes a question of how we do it. We have to look at what governments around the world have done. It is really because of government involvement, especially in other countries, that we find ourselves in this position. We have to ask ourselves, are we helping farmers or are we hurting farmers when we give them money? In many cases in the past it has been that we have hurt farmers.

In Ontario in the past two years we have taken the position that universal programs hurt farmers. When we pass out money on a universal basis, when we pass it out to those farmers who are rich -- and a lot of farmers are rich and do not owe any money; they operate their farms on their own capital -- it simply gives them money that they can invest in agriculture to increase their production; or as an alternative to go and buy their neighbour's farm.

These universal programs really do not help the persons who need them, in general the young to middle-aged farmers, the persons in the 25 to 40 age group, who in order to farm had to invest in high-priced land. In order to survive in the production race, they had to invest in a lot of heavy equipment and were caught with high interest rates, as has been mentioned. Those are the people who really need the help. Those are the people, for the benefit of the young people in the gallery today, who are going to provide the food for that generation.

The older farmers, who are not in debt and who are winding down their operations, passing them on to another generation, are not the people who are going to provide the bulk of the food. It is going to come from that middle group.

We targeted them with the OFFIRR program. We said there are people at the very bottom of the scale, those with hardly any equity at all in their farms who have to pay these high interest rates on the total amount. They simply cannot make it. As much as we would like to help them from a compassionate standpoint, from a practical standpoint we are even hurting those people when we give them money because it would prolong their agony. It would drag on for one or two more years, and they would be getting one or two years older. They are getting that much less able to make the transfer out of agriculture into some other occupation, and we end up hurting those people.

We also take money that would be better spent on the targeted group. Even though the amounts of money we are giving the targeted group are large, we all recognize they are not large enough. The most effective use of that money is by a targeted group. We do not touch the people at the top end of the equity situation because they do not need it. As I mentioned before, universality, which would include those at the top end, works against those in the middle and at the bottom.

This is a very defensible, sensible and economic way of trying our best to help the farmers of Ontario.

Mr. Stevenson: I am very pleased to have the opportunity to take

part in the discussion on this resolution. Our party will be supporting the resolution. We are pleased, as was the previous speaker, that the resolution has been changed because I am fairly confident that we could not have supported the resolution as it was originally written.

As we look around the agricultural scene in the world today, in the western world in particular, the developed nations of the world, we see a situation where we have general overproduction in many of those countries and yet the countries that need food are not in a position to afford to buy it. We have the United States, Canada, Australia, Europe and many nations of the world in a position where they cannot market the products they produce well at a price that makes much sense relative to production costs.

There are many reasons for this overproduction, but government involvement in agriculture is one of the significant reasons for overproduction. The best example of that is the situation in the European Community which, in the 1960s, was a major importer of most of the main agricultural commodities needed to feed the people. Largely as a result of government programs it became self-sufficient in the mid-1970s and now produces 20 per cent to 30 per cent more than domestic needs in most of its major agricultural commodities. That has created real problems around the world. They are subsidizing exports to the international marketplace and causing problems for other countries.

11:30

What has been the response to this on the international scene? This January, the United States brought in the Food Security Act, more commonly referred to as the US farm bill. Originally, it was estimated that it would pump something in excess of $50 billion into the US agricultural economy over the next five years, but now the estimate is more than double that. It has caused very serious repercussions in other countries; for example in Canada, Australia, Thailand, New Zealand, Brazil and so on.

Our farmers now are faced with commodity prices that are totally unrealistic when related to the cost of production. They find themselves in a position where they cannot possibly make most of these farms pay, or support their families from the farm operation.

In the summer of 1985 we saw a whole new ball game started in government funding to agriculture. The kickoff was the US farm bill. Some other governments have responded by getting involved in this ball game. In the last budget, the agriculture ministry in Alberta received a 75 per cent increase in funding. Saskatchewan agriculture received a 100 per cent increase in funding in the last budget. I have the budget right here. In Saskatchewan, for example, the increase was by more than $200 million. In Alberta, the budget is for $434 million. The previous year it was for $214 million. That is a 75 per cent increase.

The new programs there are very lucrative; in these sorts of things Ontario is just not in the ball game with them.

In contrast to a 75 per cent increase in Alberta and a 100 per cent increase in Saskatchewan, Ontario has a 13 per cent increase in its agricultural budget this year. Two years ago, in 1984, in a budget coming after one of the most serious recessions this province has ever faced, our leader, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman), gave the Ministry of Agriculture and Food a 16 per cent increase. Here we have a situation where there is a whole new ball game in funding, Ontario farmers are under a pressure such as we have never seen before and the government responds with a 13 per cent increase.

Does the government have the money? Here is the Ontario budget which was presented by the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon). Looking down the revenues coming in to this government, and comparing our leader's last budget two years ago with the current one, this government has an inflow of revenues of more than $5 billion more than we had two years ago. That is a revenue increase of 22 per cent because of increased taxes and a current buoyant economy. How many individuals, even members here, have 22 per cent more disposable income in their own personal budgets than they had two years ago? Or how many companies?

The government has an economic windfall -- not as a result of anything it has done -- that has given it an inflow of revenue unparalleled by any government before. What is it doing with it?

Personal income tax is up by $1.7 billion. That is not the total. It is up $1,700 million, if members want it in millions instead of billions. I will go down through the whole list. There is corporate income tax, gasoline taxes, which the government pegged at the highest level ever, and on and on. Liquor Control Board of Ontario profits are up at $93 million, and on it goes. Does it have the money? Bloody right it has the money. Where has it gone?

The Ministry of Agriculture and Food received an increase of $54 million this year. The Ministry of Correctional Services received an increase of $47 million, almost the same. The Ministry of Colleges and Universities is up by $174 million. The Ministry of Housing is up by $114 million.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Food is up $54 million at a time when farmers in Ontario are being threatened in a way they have never been threatened before in the history of agriculture in this province. The Agricultural Council of Ontario has said that agriculture needs unprecedented funding. The Ontario Institute of Agrologists came out the day before yesterday and said, "Agriculture needs an influx of $4 billion."

Our party has suggested that this government come up with a family farm security act that would peg stabilization payments at 10 per cent above the current stabilization level to get the revenue into the farmers' hands, and to continue to expand the various interest rate assistance programs that are available to our farmers so they have some money in their pockets to compete with farmers from other jurisdictions. We cannot let our industry die only -- and I repeat -- only because this government is not supporting our agriculture to the same level as are other jurisdictions around the world.

In the past year and a half Ontario farmers have fallen further behind those in other jurisdictions than they have ever done in the history of agriculture in this province.

Mr. Swart: I rise to support this resolution with considerable enthusiasm, not just because it comes from my colleague the member for Essex North (Mr. Hayes) but also because of the desperate need for the implementation of what my colleague proposes.

I am somewhat appalled that the Minister of Agriculture and Food is not in the House during this debate and at a time when the farmers are in the greatest crisis in which they have ever been. We have here a resolution which says that Ontario farmers should be treated the same as any other farmers in this nation. The minister is so indifferent that he does not even come into the House to listen to or to take

part in the debate. I hope he hears this and will be in before the time is up.

It is important that we all, but in particular the Minister of Agriculture and Food, recognize the very serious financial situation that exists in the farming community. Part of the purpose of this resolution is to emphasize that. The simple fact is that the farm communities in this province have not participated in any way, or in any segment, in any recovery that may have taken place from the recession. I am sure those who are close to the farmers will agree with me. The situation of the farmers has continued to worsen while in some segments of the economy in this province it has improved.

11:40

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture documents this in a brief which I am sure all of us who are concerned about agriculture have read. At the very start of the brief, on the second page, it states:

"Agriculture's financial crisis lives on. Reviewing prospects for commodity and financial markets, Agriculture Canada estimated the number of farm operations in financial difficulty would double over the next two years."

It further states, "The proportion of financially stressed farms will hold constant in spite of the substantial exit of farmers from the industry."

What they are saying is that even though a great many of them will go broke and out of business, there will be others who are in jeopardy to take their place and the ones who are in jeopardy will not --

Mr. McGuigan: It is the grain sector that is in trouble.

Mr. Swart: I should not reply to interjections, but the sectors that are in the least financial difficulty are the ones that have supply management and have control over their prices. We know that. I will be saying a word or two about that a little later.

On page 12 of the OFA brief, the statistics are put in stark reality. It is pointed out that in the period 1966 to 1970, the return to the owner and equity in labour per dollar of gross farm income was 28 cents, which dropped to 18 cents in the 1981-85 period. Of course, interest on debt, inputs and other things had gone up very substantially.

What is not in this brief, but has to be regarded as equally serious, is the loss of equity to farmers. The price of farm land in many areas of this province has been cut in half; it has been cut even more than that in some places in eastern Ontario. What has happened is that equity, which to a large extent has been considered the farmers' pension over the years, has been wiped out and they are in a very desperate situation. It even has an impact on the preservation of food land, which is so important to our society.

I am not suggesting, as my colleague the member for Essex North did not suggest, that the fault is wholly attributable to provincial policies or, for that matter, to federal policies. We know that one of the major factors is the international market, with the international prices of grains and so on, but what is true is that the situation of the farmers in this province is worse because both the previous government, and to a substantial degree this government, have been far less supportive of our agricultural producers than other provincial governments in this nation.

The situation is so bad that the OFA devoted almost half of its brief to the matter of the inadequacy of the financial assistance programs in this province. As we know, it pointed out on pages 6 and 8 of the brief that, looking at all the provinces in Canada and government assistance to the agricultural industry province by province, Ontario is the lowest from the point of view of dollars per census farm. If one looks at it from the point of view of the cents per dollar of farm production that comes in government assistance, Ontario is the lowest.

If one looks at it from the point of view of government direct payments -- not indirect payments -- to producers as a percentage of cash farm receipts in the selected provinces, which are the five major agricultural producing provinces, Ontario is less than half of any of the others.

Therefore, it is very true that the farmers in this province cannot compete equally with the farmers elsewhere in this nation, because we now have a provincial government that continues a policy of the old one by providing substantially less assistance to the farmers than do the other provincial governments of this nation. That is a deplorable situation.

One may be able to pick out some minor errors in this -- something may not have been considered -- but basically it is correct that the farmers in this province receive substantially less than those in the other provinces. In fact, they have the worst of all worlds, because although they get substantially less, there is applied against them, as well as against the rest of Canada, the countervailing duties of other nations.

Even though the Ontario farmers -- I was going to use the words "are not guilty," but those are not the words I should use -- even though the farmers here received a subsistence from the government, compared with the other provinces, they pay the same penalty. From that point of view alone, the government of this province ought to increase its assistance to the farmers.

It is a real injustice, and the farmers are very angry. The very first item they had in their brief, under their recommendations, was what my colleague the member for Essex North has in this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I say to you and to the people of this House that the farm industry in this province must be kept viable, for the sake of the province and not just that of the farmers. It is estimated that there are seven people who hold jobs incidental to every person actually working on the farm. We know what happened to the farm implement industry when the farmers' real income dropped substantially.

The farmers in Ontario deserve at least as good treatment as farmers in the other provinces. Surely no one in this House can vote against this resolution.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Haldimand-Norfolk. I remind the member he has up to eight minutes.

Mr. G. I. Miller: I too appreciate the opportunity of rising and speaking in support of the resolution that has been presented today by the member for Essex North. The timing of the resolution is fitting as far as the agricultural industry is concerned.

The comments of the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) indicated that the Minister of Agriculture and Food is not here today. Speaking as parliamentary assistant, I assure him that the minister will be watching this debate and listening closely to the comments that are being made today in this Legislature dealing with such an important item in an industry that is the largest and most important in Ontario.

I point out to members of the third party that the first resolution they brought in indicates they do not understand the agricultural industry in Ontario all that well, because it dealt more at the federal level than at the provincial level. This resolution is more fitting; it deals with responsibilities directly under the control of this Legislature, and we can commend the member for that.

The official opposition has indicated that the government of the day is not supporting agriculture as strongly as it might, and I can agree with those comments to some extent. Certainly, I would like to see more money put into the programs. As I look back to the beginning of my 10 years in the Legislature, I recall that we tried to push the Minister of Agriculture and Food of that day to get more involved. The opposition members can accept some responsibilities for the position the farming community is in at present because of their lack of action going back to those earlier years.

11:50

I recall bringing in a resolution similar to this, I believe in 1984. It suggested we should have eight per cent interest when the interest rate was running as high as 22 per cent. The government of the day sat on its hands and watched the farmers get into the difficulties they are paying for at present.

However, I am not all doom and gloom. Agriculture can and will play an important role for our young people of the future, our young farmers. There is some indication that is happening with the programs that have been put in place. The beginning farmer program was implemented by the now official opposition. I believe 2,340 loans have been applied for. Out of 35,000 full-time farmers in Ontario, that is an indication that they have some confidence in the future of agriculture.

The Ontario family farm interest rate reduction program has been a good program, much better than many that were in place over the past many years. We have seen more than 10,000 applications applying to utilize the OFFIRR program, which reduces the interest rate to eight per cent. I believe close to 10,000 have been approved, and it may well be more than 10,000 when the final count is in.

The member for Essex North indicated that some have not been able to qualify for that program. I agree with that. We have had complaints. However, the program was targeted to the full-time farmer and to make sure the average small farmer could stay in the business. Perhaps the program should be reviewed and adjusted. I suggest to the member that when the estimates for the Ministry of Agriculture and Food come before the Legislature will be an opportune time for the opposition to have input.

I will quote from the Ontario Federation of Agriculture when it met with cabinet last week:

"The OFA would like to commend the activity of the minister of agriculture and is in obvious support of the Premier, the Treasurer and cabinet for moving quickly on a number of issues important to the farm community. We recognize and support the initiatives the government has taken to date."

They list them, and the list is lengthy. Within the past couple of weeks the government announced a stabilization plan for potato producers, something that should have been put in place some time ago.

I do not want to let the federal government out of its responsibilities. We look at supportive programs in the United States and in the European Community. It is the federal government that has to play the strong role. Our federal government has committed $1 billion to the agricultural industry of Canada. I assure the members of the Legislature that our ministry will be fighting for its share of that money to assist farmers in Ontario.

The Ontario Institute of Agrologists released a report as recently as October 21. I commend it for the work it has done in regard to agriculture. It points out how important is the role the industry plays in our overall economy. It suggests the federal government should put in $4 billion, not $1 billion, to save the industry.

When we are looking at solutions to the problem, we have to be sure we are on solid footing when we subsidize. I think the farmer would rather have the cost of production. Under the Ontario Farm Products Marketing Board, the organized milk producers and the chicken producers are not getting the cost of production out of their products, which is what we should be striving to get. In the meantime, for a farmer to pay his debts, he has to have the dollars to do it.

With corn on the market at less than $1 a bushel at present -- that is a Depression price -- there is no way he can generate enough money to pay his interest rates, his taxes and the high cost of operating in the agriculture industry.

The Minister of Agriculture and Food is certainly aware of the situation, and with the co-operation of this House, he will be trying to stabilize the agriculture industry and make sure it gets the tools to work with, which are the dollars it requires to balance its budget.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Essex North reserved four minutes, and I believe that is the amount of time that is remaining. Does the member wish to --

Mr. Sheppard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I support the member for Essex North on his resolution.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Member for Essex North, if you wish to --

Mr. Hayes: Just to show how easy we are to get along with, Mr. Speaker, I will give him one minute.

Mr. Sheppard: Fine. I thank my colleague. In 1984, the Treasurer himself promised that a Liberal administration would double its commitment to agriculture; yet in the 1986 spring budget there was a mere 13.3 per cent increase for agriculture overall.

I listened to the brief of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture on Tuesday morning, and I thought it was exaggerating a bit when it said the Liberal government had done all these things. It promised a lot of things, but it did not do all the things it was supposed to do.

I support my colleague the member for Essex North, and I hope this House supports this resolution.

Mr. Hayes: I will make a few minor comments. I know the member for Kent-Elgin may dispute some of the figures, and we can play with figures all we want; but the fact is that Ontario gives less money to the farmers than other provinces in Canada do.

I agree with the member for Durham-York (Mr. Stevenson) when he says that sometimes the reason we are in this mess today is government involvement. That might be so, but because of government involvement, we must have a little more government involvement today to get us out of this mess.

Anyway, I appreciate the members supporting this motion, and I hope it does carry unanimously.

The member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. G. I. Miller) mentioned my other resolution and said I did not understand much about agriculture. Perhaps I do not understand as much as some people do, but I am learning very quickly; and it is obvious to me that there are a lot of other politicians around here who do not understand agriculture very well today -- or very well in the past either -- or else we would not be in the mess we are in with agriculture.

I also notice -- without any bitterness, of course -- that the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Ramsay) has not appeared in the House today. He is a member who was always supposed to be so interested in agriculture for the people in the north. I thought he might have been here today. As a matter of fact, he supported the other resolution I had.

I do not have very much time, but my colleague the member for Ottawa Centre (Ms. Gigantes) has given me a copy of a very interesting

article from the Ottawa Citizen. Its headline reads, "Farm Families Buckling under Stress: Divorce, Suicide Rates Climbing in Rural Areas." It is very sad that a lot of this is happening.

One of the comments that was made by a fellow by the name of Mr. O' Brien was: "A farm couple used to have no reason to divorce. They used to get up together, went to the barn together and ate together. They never separated and never met anyone else. But now, for example, she often has to work in the city, and all her money goes to support the farm and she cannot even buy decent clothes for the kids." This is the kind of situation we are in today.

Mr. Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Mr. Hayes: Thank you very much.

Mr. Cousens: That was the best speech. He should be in cabinet.

Mr. McClellan: He will be.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If I might be permitted, because of the confusion that seemed to arise last week at this time, I would like to inform the member for York Centre (Mr. Cousens) that we are now prepared to vote on these resolutions and bills.

LIQUOR CONTROL AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Shymko has moved second reading of Bill 133.

Motion agreed to.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Hayes has moved resolution 63.

Motion agreed to.

The House recessed at 12:01 p.m.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

VISITORS

Mr. Speaker: I would like to inform all members of the House that today we are very fortunate to have a visiting group of parliamentarians from the Interparliamentary Association Canada-France. Mr. Geng and his colleagues are here. I would like you to join me in welcoming them. Bienvenue.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TOBACCO TAX

Mr. Sterling: This afternoon this government will ask this Legislature to pass a piece of legislation that will encourage more young people in our province to become addicts of a harmful substance. The Department of National Health and Welfare has reported a dramatic 20 per cent increase in the daily smoking rate of those between 12 and 29 in Ontario in 1986 over the rate in 1985. In other provinces, the rate has dropped by 13 per cent; in each and every province the rate of smoking has dropped among our young people. This is a crisis since we know that 30 to 40 of these young people in this province will die each year in 20 to 30 years from now.

This is a new problem of this Liberal government. When our party was in power, fewer young people took up the habit of smoking each year, as a result of our persistence in keeping the taxation level at a consistent rate with the rate of inflation. Numerous studies have shown that the use of tobacco falls dramatically among our young people when the price of tobacco goes up. I ask the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) to amend his bill to raise the tax and put that money aside for our tobacco farmers.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Martel: I predict that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) will indicate he gave a cooked page 12 in his ministry report on Domtar because the health and safety committee at Domtar wanted time to review the problems identified in the report prepared by Dr. Chong and Dr. Haines.

It should be noted that the union representative on the health and safety committee was told that the plant could be closed if the matter of cleanup was pushed too hard, and the minister was aware of that threat. The union was prepared to discuss matters, but was unaware that Dr. Muir and Normand Pellerin, a director of Domtar, were holding meetings to have the report rewritten.

I would like to quote from Dr. Muir in yesterday's Toronto Star: "Dr. Muir, a long-time consultant to the Workers' Compensation Board, said his goal is to preserve his program's credibility in the eyes of workers and employers, and that means avoiding advocacy on behalf of patients. `I'm not willing to lose that neutral image for myself or by association.'"

By agreeing to rewrite the report without the involvement and knowledge of the union, Dr. Muir was, according to any objective observer, taking the side of the company in this matter. Dr. Muir accepted the initial report based on the scientific analysis. I am told he asked the authors to moderate the tone of the report, not the conclusions. What promoted rewriting? I suspect two threats: a law suit against the ministry, as I am told in a letter, and the possible closing of the plant. This matter has to be investigated thoroughly.

MINISTRY HIRING

Mr. Haggerty: I would like to update the members of the Legislature on the employment practices of the Ministry of Government Services from January 17, 1986, to May 22, 1986. During that period, no new permanent positions were created at the Ministry of Government Services. In fact, 29 fewer positions were funded in the 1986-87 fiscal year than in the previous fiscal year.

The Ministry of Government Services has a staff of close to 3,000 employees. Of the 194 employees hired between January 17, 1986, and May 22, 1986, 75 were classified employees hired to replace staff that had retired or resigned. This is considered a normal turnover rate in a ministry of this size. One hundred and nineteen were unclassified employees hired on a temporary basis to provide short-term assistance to the ministry to ease heavy work loads.

A significant number of these jobs went to students for the summer period as part of the ministry's support of the Ontario government's student employment program.

NURSING HOMES

Mr. Cousens: A headline in today's Globe and Mail quotes the Premier (Mr. Peterson) as saying, "Old People Need Less Food Than Others." The elderly of Ontario do not deserve this insult. To begin with, the statement is inaccurate. The elderly tend to need fewer calories but have an even greater need for high-quality, nutritious food. The elderly require more nutritious food, not less food.

The Premier's statement can indicate only one thing: a profound ignorance of the needs of the elderly, not to mention a callous insensitivity to their needs. As chairman of the Progressive Conservative task force on the elderly, I have become more aware of seniors' needs. Take Meals on Wheels, for example. Would the Premier want to reduce helpings? Does he want to categorize and stereotype seniors?

It is wrong to show such a shallow, callous disregard for seniors' needs now when the elderly are looking for new leadership and direction. We will remember the Premier shrugging his shoulders and saying, "They do not eat that much anyway." The Premier should beware when commenting on the eating habits of the populace. We all recall the fate of someone who proclaimed, "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche. Let them eat cake."

WISHART LIBRARY

Mr. Morin-Strom: I am pleased today to be able to honour a distinguished former member of this Legislature. Today in Sault Ste. Marie, the library of Algoma University College is being officially named the Wishart Library, a fitting tribute to a most distinguished citizen who has served the people of Sault Ste. Marie and the province well for many years.

Born in New Brunswick in 1903, Arthur Wishart got his law degree from Osgoode Hall Law School in 1930, practised in Windsor and Blind River, where he became the mayor as well, and then joined a law firm in Sault Ste. Marie in 1939. In 1963, he was elected member of the provincial parliament for Sault Ste. Marie. He entered the cabinet within a year as Attorney General under the John Robarts administration.

He served in that senior cabinet portfolio for seven years and is credited with shepherding many important pieces of legislation, including the Legal Aid Act of 1966 and the Law Enforcement Compensation Act of 1967. After retiring from politics in 1971, he also served the province as chairman of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and later of the Commission on Election Contributions and Expenses.

Arthur Wishart has been a long-time advocate for Algoma University College and has served for many years as a trustee on its governing board. The naming of the Wishart Library today pays fitting tribute to a distinguished citizen of my community and this province.

HUNGARIAN REVOLUTION

14:10

Mr. Morin: On behalf of the Premier, my colleagues and the government of Ontario, I rise for the purpose of recognizing an important event that took place on this date 30 years ago, on October 23, 1956. On this date, 3,000 students of the Technological University in Budapest began a peaceful protest for political reform which ended in an uprising to render Hungary free of the shackles of the Stalinist regime for the first time since 1947. The days of glorious freedom were not to last, however; two weeks later, on November 4, Soviet tanks rumbled into Budapest.

Today we cherish the memory of the valiant bravery of the Hungarian men and women who, against overwhelming odds, fought the occupation forces. On behalf of the Ontario government, I would like to pay tribute to the freedom fighters of 1956 and to Hungarians everywhere who lost a battle but won the admiration and respect of freedom-loving people everywhere.

I would like to recognize in the gallery Judge Steven Walters, vice-president of Hungarian Freedom Fighters and vice-president of the Hungarian-Canadian Federation.

Mr. Shymko: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: In light of the fact that this statement on the anniversary of the Hungarian revolution is not made by a cabinet minister, some of us on this side would like to join in the remarks of the member for Carleton East. I would like to have the leave of the House to allow for that procedure.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I certainly want to co-operate with the honourable member in marking this important event in every way possible. My colleague undertook to use his one minute and a half available during this procedure to bring that to the attention of the House. It seems to me the member for High Park-Swansea has equal access, but I am sure all of us will agree that this is an occasion when any member who wishes to contribute should have an opportunity to do so.

Mr. McClellan: My concern is that the minister who normally makes the statements marking these kinds of anniversaries appears to have given this statement to a private member for the private member to use the time allocated to members' statements to make the statement. I thought we had worked out some way of marking important anniversaries, first with the minister making a statement and then with an opportunity for each of the opposition parties also to recognize the important day. The deviation in the procedure has made things a little awkward.

Mr. Speaker: It appears we are getting into a bit of debate. However, there has been a request by the member for High-Park Swansea. I will have to ask the House what its decision may be.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: We will support any reasonable statement.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I believe that was a 90-second statement. Does the House wish to allow any reasonable statement?

Agreed to.

Mr. Shymko: I want to join the member for Carleton East in his remarks on this very important day, important not only to the Hungarian community in Canada and the Hungarian people but to all freedom-loving peoples in the world. This marks the 30th anniversary of the Hungarian revolution of 1956.

On that day 30 years ago, thousands of university students in Budapest staged a demonstration of protest against an oppressive Communist regime. What began as a peaceful demonstration turned into a political uprising, leading to a series of political and social reforms moving the country towards democracy. On November 4, 12 days later, the revolution was suppressed when Soviet troops moved into Hungary, foreshadowing what would happen in Czechoslovakia several years later, and a new Communist government was put in place.

In the aftermath of the revolution, several political activists were executed, among them, as we all recall, Imre Nagy, the leader of the Hungarian people, and 150,000 refugees fled to the west.

I want to remind the honourable members of the work of all the members of all parties of the Legislature of Ontario in those days when they joined the Honourable John Yaremko and the Honourable Allan Grossman in their efforts to settle these refugees in Canada. The members of this House can therefore all take pride today in the efforts of the then Premier Leslie Frost, who encouraged the federal government to open Canadian borders to 37,000 refugees, and in the work of former members of this Legislature who were involved in this.

Today we all join in remembrance of those who lost their lives as well in the struggle for liberty, human rights and freedom. We also recognize October 23, 1956, as a historic milestone in a fight for the democracy that so many of us have come to take for granted.

Mr. Laughren: Thirty years ago today, the Hungarian people expressed their profound unhappiness with their totalitarian government, and the Hungarian revolution began.

The Hungarian people were and are a courageous people. They wanted nothing more than the basic rights to which all freedom-loving people aspire. The Hungarian people were crushed and thousands were killed by Soviet forces armed to the teeth. The Soviet Union will, I suspect, never be able to erase from people's minds that picture of massive Russian tanks lumbering through the streets of Hungarian cities.

The revolution failed, but many thousands of Hungarian people left their homeland and emigrated to countries around the world. Canada was fortunate in having many of them choose this country as their new home. They have contributed mightily to Canadian life, and while they and their children are now committed Canadian citizens, the fires of Hungarian nationalism burn fiercely in their hearts.

I and my fellow New Democrats join with others in this assembly in remembering with sadness that day 30 years ago. We also pay tribute to the courage of the Hungarian people and assure them that we shall not forget either their courage or their cause.

Mr. Newman: I would like to read into the record the words of Joseph Cardinal Mindszenty in a statement made on October 23 quite a few years ago:

"There is no country which in the course of its thousands of years of history has suffered more than have the Hungarians. They have had to wage incessant struggles for their independence, mostly in defence of the western countries. These struggles interrupted the continuity of our development, and we have had to rise again by our own efforts.

"In the course of history, this is the first occasion that Hungary has enjoyed the sympathy of all civilized nations. We are deeply moved by this, and every member of our small nation is joyous in his heart that because of our love for liberty, the nations have taken up its cause."

ARTS FUNDING

Ms. Fish: The Minister for Citizenship and Culture (Ms. Munro) will be supporting a deficit write-down to Stratford and other theatres that are running deficits.

The minister's attempt to support the arts is transparent for several reasons. In the course of providing the resources, she completely bypasses the Ontario Arts Council, which clearly should be making the decisions about which organizations should receive what form of funding and when.

It is worthy of note that a few short years ago, when other deficit write-down payments were required for those same theatre groups, the decision on the amount and the timing of any such payments was made entirely by the arts council. It was the arts council that was funded and asked to take those decisions. The council serves at arm's length from the minister and from the ministry and works on behalf of arts groups.

The real question is what resources will be provided for those like Shaw and others that have lived within fiscal restraint and not run deficits.

Mr. Bernier: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I want to bring to your attention the fact that the privileges of all the members of this House were abused today -- in fact, this afternoon -- when the Premier (Mr. Peterson) announced on CBC Radio the sale of the world-class recreational convention centre at Minaki Lodge. Surely he should have had the common decency to make this announcement in this House, because that is the way we do business here. This is the democratic way of doing business. He should be called before the bar of the House to explain.

Mr. Speaker: I listened very carefully, and I believe similar matters have been mentioned and brought up in this legislative chamber. As I recall, they have never been considered a point of privilege. However, I note your point of information.

14:22

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Yesterday, certain allegations were made by my friend the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) regarding a report prepared by the McMaster occupational health clinic on the potential risk of cancer in certain Domtar workers because of exposure to coal tar pitch volatiles. I wish to remind my honourable friend that the report in question was commissioned by the two work place parties. The Ministry of Labour did not commission or arrange for the report.

In his presentation, the member made very specific assertions. His allegations of deliberate impropriety and unethical conduct in the preparation of this health report are a very serious matter. I view them with the utmost gravity.

As my friend is undoubtedly aware, this very issue has been brought to the attention of John Laskin. It is one of the nearly 70 cases he is investigating and upon which he will render his judgement as part of the independent, external review which he, along with Geoff McKenzie, has been instructed to undertake into the operation of the occupational health and safety division. To intervene at this time would compromise and prejudice the result of Mr. Laskin's thorough review on this matter. I would not want to do that, nor would the member wish me to do that.

However, my friend's allegations raise a more general issue. It is my view that one of the critical functions of government is to create an environment in which work place problems can be identified and resolved by those most directly affected. The Occupational Health and Safety Act provides the mechanism to achieve this goal. The internal responsibility system, of which the joint health and safety committee is an integral part, is fundamental to the functioning of the act. The internal responsibility system is predicated upon mutual responsibility for a safe, healthy work place that both parties share.

In this instance, neither of the work place parties expressed any reservations or doubts to me about the final report that was presented to the parties in April 1987. It is not up to the minister or his officials to go behind the concurrence, ostensible or otherwise, of the parties to a report prepared on their behalf, a copy of which is submitted to the ministry.

When coal tar pitch volatiles at Domtar became a public issue in the summer of 1985, I spoke to the local union leadership about releasing the report's findings. At that time, I was told in the strongest of terms not to intervene. The union urged me to leave all matters to the joint health and safety committee for resolution.

At no time prior to yesterday did the union express any disagreement to me or my officials with the contents of the medical report. For that matter, prior to yesterday, at no time did any of the examining physicians ever express to me or my officials disagreement with the contents of the medical report. If either of the work place parties had reservations over the contents of the report, it was their right -- indeed, it was their obligation -- to communicate those reservations to me or my officials.

With regard to the broader issue of health and safety in this province over the past 17 months, there is no area of my portfolio to which I have devoted greater energy. It is because of this government's unrelenting and unwavering commitment to health and safety that we have fostered a climate in which the work place parties now feel they can come forward with their concerns. Such constructive developments can only assist this government's resolve to develop the best occupational health and safety system in North America.

Mr. Gillies: The statement made by the Minister of Labour is a very serious matter. For the minister to fail to respond directly to the charges made by the member for Sudbury East is unacceptable and represents a dereliction of duty.

It is bad enough that the minister has had to launch an inquiry into the operations of the occupational health and safety branch of his own ministry, but it is doubly unacceptable that the minister then hides behind the inquiry whenever serious allegations in this area are raised in the House.

It is a very simple matter, as I understand it. The minister and his staff would have the capacity to determine whether it was medical report 1 or medical report 2, or whether it is 15 or 45 employees whose health is being adversely affected by the coal tar pitch. If the hundreds of employees of the ministry are not able to advise the minister on that, then there really is something wrong.

Mr. Martel: I cannot believe the response of the Minister of Labour. It is as usual. Can the minister tell me why I received a doctored report? He did not answer that. He did not answer why the report I received was different from that which went out. Why were the results of the survey not in the report I received? There are two reports there.

There are also two reports by McMaster: the one that was commissioned and the one that Muir rewrote. The minister has not answered that.

Muir rewrote the second report; he did not test one of the workers. According to yesterday's Toronto Star, he said the two doctors agreed with the findings. That is not true. The two doctors are Chong and Haines; they did not agree, and they would not sign the second report. Why in God's name did the minister accept a second report from those birds? There are 45 workers ill. He confuses the two reports. He makes it appear as though there are not two different reports. Why did he accept a second medical report that did not look at one of the workers?

To suggest that Laskin can get to the bottom of this issue is irresponsible on the minister's part, because Laskin cannot subpoena. He can go around and question a bit. The minister's friend Ham is looking into this in discussions with Muir. He has funded Muir and his outfit to the tune of $300,000 a year. He is redoing reports, and the minister wants the internal responsibility system to work in conjunction with the company and with the union not even aware that it is going on.

The minister cannot hide behind this one any more. He is going to have to order a full public inquiry with the right to subpoena to get to the bottom of it. Nothing else will do.

MINAKI LODGE

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I wish to report on the progress this government is making to comply with the unanimous all-party recommendations of the standing committee on procedural affairs and agencies, boards and commissions with regard to Minaki Lodge.

In January 1986, the committee recommended "that the government not undertake major capital expenditures at Minaki" and that "the board of directors of Minaki Lodge Resort Ltd. make every effort to sell the company." The committee also recognized that the government of Ontario's capital investment could not form part of the purchase price.

Members of the committee further stated that "the Ontario government should not be in the hotel business." This was in recognition of the fact that, since the province acquired the lodge in 1974, the taxpayers of the province have absorbed operating and capital expenditures of approximately $33 million.

Accordingly, I am pleased to inform members that we have agreed in principle to sell Minaki Lodge to Four Seasons Hotels Ltd. Final negotiations are continuing, and a fully documented agreement with Four Seasons is expected to be signed shortly. At that time I will make the agreement public, together with all related information, including the process that led to its completion. The chairman and members of the board of directors of Minaki Lodge have fully supported this decision.

On the basis of the most recent estimates, the lodge as currently operated will not cover provincial costs for the foreseeable future. It would require an estimated additional investment by the province of approximately $2 million to meet operating and maintenance requirements for the next five years. Four Seasons has indicated its intention to operate the lodge through a management agreement with the Elgin Group of Port Caning, which specializes in resort management.

Four Seasons is a purchaser of experience and stature. It is a Canadian company that manages 20 luxury hotels throughout Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom. Four Seasons and the Elgin Group are committed to maintaining the facility as a five-star destination resort hotel. We are persuaded that a sale at this time to this quality purchaser will be in the best short- and long-term interests of the taxpayers of Ontario and that Minaki Lodge will continue to provide important economic benefits to the tourism industry in northwestern Ontario.

Mr. Bernier: I stand in response to the announcement by the Minister of Tourism and Recreation with respect to the sale of Minaki Lodge and to reiterate my disgust and condemnation of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) for making the announcement on CBC Radio this afternoon.

I point out that the minister's statement is a very simple one. It has no details. It is an exact copy of the Urban Transportation Development Corp. exercise, where it plays down the cost of a facility and then goes on to continue negotiations. The government embarrasses itself and the taxpayers of this province. I point out to the minister that while the standing committee on procedural affairs and agencies, boards and commissions did recommend that Minaki be sold, it did not recommend that it should be given away.

As a member of the previous administration, which was involved with Minaki Lodge, I want to make it abundantly clear that we make no apologies for that public expenditure, none at all. It created 200 jobs. It brought $7 million into the economy of northwestern Ontario. It is the tourist mecca of that area, and the minister knows it.

Minaki Lodge has operated for a mere three years. It is truly the tourism success story of this decade; there is no question about it. This is proved by the fact that there were some 30 buyers on the long list wanting to purchase Minaki Lodge. The fact that Four Seasons, a Canadian company, was anxious to buy and operate Minaki Lodge is a true indication that it was a good investment for the people of this province.

ARTS FUNDING

Hon. Ms. Munro: I am pleased to rise today and announce a special one-time funding plan to ensure the long-term economic viability of Ontario's arts organizations. As far as the arts are concerned, our government's role is supportive. We work to remove obstacles and provide the environment for artists to thrive and imagination to flourish.

My ministry, through such programs as Investment in the Arts, encourages arts organizations to work towards self-sufficiency by raising funds from new sources in the private and corporate communities. Unfortunately, some groups are suffering from severe economic strain caused by substantial accumulated deficits.

One gains a real appreciation of the problem when one realizes that of the approximately 200 arts organizations with budgets greater than $75,000, about 75 have deficits greater than five per cent of their total budget; 24 have deficits greater than 20 per cent. There are many reasons for these deficits. In most cases, total revenues have simply not kept pace with inflation, forcing groups to either cut back in programming or incur a deficit.

In addition, precarious financial situations make organizations particularly vulnerable to the vagaries of the marketplace. No cushion is in place to cover periodic shortfalls in earned revenue or money from fund-raising campaigns. This was evident during our recent recessionary period.

Often, arts organizations are not the only ones affected. In some cases, an arts organization is a major economic as well as social force in the community. The financial destabilization of such an organization has a very serious impact on the community in which it exists. This is especially true in small, medium-sized and northern communities such as Stratford and Thunder Bay.

Today, I am announcing a total of $2.5 million in financial stabilization grants, which will go to a number of arts organizations across Ontario to help reduce their deficits. These one-time-only grants will include $1 million to the Stratford Festival and $500,000 to the Grand Theatre in London. Also included will be grants to other arts organizations with severe accumulated deficits.

Eligible organizations and grant amounts will be determined through a review of 1985-86 audited financial statements. These groups are clients of either my ministry or the Ontario Arts Council and have budgets in excess of $75,000.

This money will be distributed by March 31, the end of the 1986-87 fiscal year.

My ministry intends that these financial stabilization grants will help maintain the integrity of endowment funds established by arts organizations through our Investment in the Arts program. In this program, my ministry matches one dollar for every dollar raised by the organization above its fund-raising base. If the dollar comes from a new corporate donor, we will match it two for one.

We consider Investment in the Arts to be the province's most effective means of addressing the arts community's endowment needs. Endowment funds are one of the best ways to address the long-term funding requirements of arts organizations. Their effectiveness can be maximized, however, only if the arts organization has a stable financial base in place, free from the pressures of excessive deficits. The financial stabilization grants announced today will allow new money to be more fully devoted to endowments.

In closing, this government is committed to the cultural, social and economic development of this province, and we consider the arts an important part of life in Ontario. Through these grants, I know these organizations will enrich our lives for many years to come.

Mrs. Marland: I find the statement by the Minister of Citizenship and Culture to be very interesting. It talks about this being a one-time-only grant to Stratford. She does not choose to tell the House that there has already been a previous deficit stabilization grant to Stratford, which was handled properly through the Ontario Arts Council, and which kept at credit the fact that the council operates at arm's length and is independent of the government. This whole process announced today will put at risk the entire arts community in terms of the confidence it has in grant funding from the government.

One other thing I find very ironical is that in her statement, the minister says the government considers investment in the arts to be the province's most effective means of addressing the arts community's funding needs. How interesting that is, following immediately on the heels of yesterday, when in this same Legislature the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) refused to withdraw Bill 38 on the lottery funding, which provides at least some security for the arts community in this province, and Bill 26, which again attacks the arts community through the 10 per cent amusement tax exemption.

Mr. Allen: In response to the statement by the Minister of Citizenship and Culture with regard to funding because of the instability of many of our arts organizations in the province, while this party supports additional moneys for the working artists and arts organizations of this province, we reject the method by which this is being done. It abuses the arm's-length policy that the Macaulay commission underlined as necessary in this field.

The fundamental reason it is possible to do it in this way, and why it is sometimes necessary, is that the ministry still has not reached the objective of that commission and established national average levels of funding for the performing arts in this province.

That makes it possible for the minister to dangle those arts groups on a political patronage basis and to put organizations such as the Grand Theatre of London, which is a very respectable and eminent organization, in the invidious position of appearing to receive political patronage from the Premier (Mr. Peterson). It is an unfortunate development. Why does the minister not give the money to the Ontario Arts Council, do it at arm's length and get out of all this nonsense?

GAS UTILITIES

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: During the past two years, control of each of Ontario's three major gas utilities has changed hands. As a result, most of our gas utilities are members of extended corporate families.

The utilities have affiliates which produce oil and gas, and some subsidiaries conduct activities that are far removed from the gas distribution business. Changes in the control of our gas utilities can now occur at the holding company level rather than at the level of the utility itself. A recent example of this is the takeover by Gulf Canada of Hiram Walker Resources, the parent of Consumers' Gas.

In short, utility regulation has become more complicated as utilities and their owners have sought opportunities for diversifying their interests.

Diversification is an ordinary and necessary aspect of private sector business. Our natural gas distribution system in Ontario is mature, and our utilities will require smaller amounts of capital for system expansion. It is natural for these companies to seek opportunities to diversify. However, the government must ensure that customers and the utilities themselves are not exposed to unnecessary and undesirable risks, particularly when companies are investing their earnings in peripheral or nonutility businesses.

With this in mind, on April 9, 1986, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. Kwinter) announced the government's intent to bring forward legislation to strengthen those parts of the Ontario Energy Board Act governing control and ownership of utilities.

Consistent with previously expressed concerns, the new legislation would introduce rules of conduct designed to further ensure that the public interest in natural gas price, service and reliability is protected. Using this picket-fence approach assures protection of the public interest, regardless of who owns or controls the utility.

In fulfilment of this commitment, I propose to introduce legislation later this afternoon to amend the Ontario Energy Board Act. These amendments will insulate gas utilities from the risks associated with nonutility activities.

The amendments will require nonutility investments as of April 9, 1986, and later, to be carried out in separate, nonsubsidiary corporations; require full disclosure of all transactions between utilities and their affiliates, to ensure fair market pricing for such transactions; require a majority of the directors of a utility to be independent of the utility's affiliates; and forbid a utility to advance funds to or guarantee the obligations of an affiliate.

Exemptions from the application of the first and last of these provisions will be available only with the approval of the Ontario Energy Board. No other exemptions are provided for.

In other words, we are encouraging the gas utilities to remain as utilities, not only to simplify the increasingly complex process of regulation but also to ensure maximum protection of the public interest with respect to the provision of utility services.

Changes in the direct ownership of gas utilities will continue to be subject to review by the Ontario Energy Board and to the prior approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council. However, the review and approval process has been strengthened in two very important ways.

First, the amendments provide the Ontario Energy Board with specific criteria in reviewing applications for approval; these include the potential for non-arm's-length transactions, diversion of utility resources to nonutility businesses and the likely impact on the cost and quality of service.

I might add that it is not the intention of this government to allow any exemptions from the requirement for a public hearing into a change of control of a gas utility. On the other hand, the Ontario Energy Board would have the authority to dispense with a hearing. First, the board must give public notice that, in its view, a hearing may not be necessary. After any submissions from the public have been received and considered, the board may then determine that a hearing is not needed.

In

summary, the proposed amendments to the Ontario Energy Board Act, by prescribing a code of utility conduct, will protect the public interest in natural gas prices, service and reliability, regardless of who owns, controls or operates a gas utility. It will also permit maximum ease of transfer of utility shares, consistent with the protection of the public interest.

Mr. Charlton: I would like to take a few moments to respond to the statement by the Minister of Energy this afternoon on control of gas utilities. It is two years since my leader, my colleague the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) and several other members of this caucus held a press conference dealing with this issue. The minister should be ashamed to have stood up here this afternoon and set out for us new legislation that will create exactly the same problems we tried to express two years ago to the then government.

The minister obviously does not understand the nature of the problem in terms of controlling the gas utilities and the funds in gas utilities. The exemption process in the existing legislation created the problem, not the legislation itself. The minister has turned around and set out four criteria, only two of which have teeth in them. Then we are told those are the two criteria that can be exempted by a hearing. A piece of legislation is being created with an identical flaw to the one in the legislation that is being replaced, and the system will not change one iota.

CONSUMER WEEK

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I would like to take this opportunity to inform the members of the House that October 25 to 31 is Consumer Week in Canada. In honour of this week, I am pleased to join with the Ontario branch of the Consumers' Association of Canada in proclaiming Consumer Week in Ontario.

In proclaiming Consumer Week, I would like to state that this province is fully committed to protecting the rights of Ontario consumers, and we have impressive and effective legislation to ensure those rights.

Consumer Week activities provide an opportunity for us all to become more aware of the important role played by well-informed consumers in Ontario's marketplace. It is also an opportunity to recognize the work of the Consumers' Association and, indeed, of all agencies that promote consumer education and awareness.

In proclaiming Consumer Week 1986, we encourage Ontarians to reflect on the benefits enjoyed by both business and consumers in a fair and equitable environment. My ministry is undertaking several activities in honour of Consumer Week, including the distribution of information and educational material throughout the province, and we are working in conjunction with the Consumers' Association of Canada to further promote consumer awareness through poster campaigns and library displays.

As part of our celebration, I am pleased to provide all members of the House with a copy of our 1987-88 consumer tips calendar. These will be delivered to the members' offices today.

Mr. Runciman: I commend the minister -- I do not do this frequently -- for Consumer Week. It is an excellent move, and I encourage him. I hope he has not brought in the member for York South (Mr. Rae) to select the calendars for the week. The member is well known, as we all are aware, in terms of pricing calendars. I would hate to see that occur. In any event, my congratulations to the minister.

14:51

ORAL QUESTIONS

PAY EQUITY LEGISLATION

Ms. Fish: In view of the absence of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Scott), who is the minister responsible for women's issues, I will direct my question to the government House leader.

We note that once again we have been treated to a full and complete report in the news media of the government's intentions on policy prior to a statement or anything being tabled in this House.

Can the government House leader confirm that it is the government's intention to bring in a purported pay equity bill for the private sector that will have the effect of eliminating from pay equity some 68 per cent of all the private firms in this province and that because a gender predominance requirement will remove from the protection of pay equity those women in the social sciences, where there are only 52 per cent women; in teaching, where there are 59 per cent women; in sales, where it is 40 per cent women; and those in recreational occupations, where it is 39 per cent and --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The honourable member will know that the pay equity b