Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House resumed at 8 o’clock, p.m.

Mr. Chairman: Just before we start the business of the evening, I’d recognize the member for Dovercourt.

Mr. G. Nixon (Dovercourt): Mr. Chairman, tonight we have guests from the multicultural riding of Dovercourt with us from the Dovercourt Progressive Conservative Association. I heartily welcome these people here tonight.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Mr. Chairman, I ask your indulgence for a moment to introduce a group from my riding, the Lakeshore Business Women’s Club from the Mayfair Inn with Miss E. Moskal heading them up. I hope this House will welcome them.

Mr. Chairman: I now recognize the member for Wentworth.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FOOD (CONTINUED)

On vote 1701:

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Thank you. I will introduce someone to you in a moment. I do have a group attending here this evening but I’ll wait until they are all here.

Mr. R. G. Eaton (Middlesex South): That is why you are here.

Mr. Deans: Oh, you know better than that. Even you couldn’t make that kind of a mistake.

I want to go back for a moment to put into perspective what I was talking about. I think the hon. Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stewart) and I would both agree that there are some rather severe problems facing the fruit industry in the Niagara Peninsula. They have overcome them in the main, but in ways which haven’t come to grips with the gradual erosion of what we consider -- and what I think the minister also considers -- to be the most ideal soil in the Province of Ontario for the growth of the products for which they are famous, tender fruit.

In addition, I think the minister and I would agree that in spite of modem technology and the best efforts of everyone, at some point we will face a crisis situation. Then, although we may be able in some way to artificially stimulate the soil in other parts of the province, it is not reasonable to assume that over the course of time we will be able to do so to such an extent that we will be able to meet the needs of future generations.

Beyond that, we have a major problem. It is not only a matter of soil but a matter of climate. The climate in the Peninsula area is obviously the best-suited for the growth that takes place there.

I am sure the minister has read the article from which I was quoting. If he hasn’t, I commend it to him. It’s on pages 21 and 22 of the March edition of “The Grower.” I want to read to the minister the conclusions and then spend a moment talking about them.

The conclusions were as follows:

“The fruit industry is a vital one with a 150-year history in Ontario. It’s a way of life and a business that has been and is and will continue to be an important contributor to the economy and culture of Ontario.

“Today the fruit industry, as all other phases of agriculture, is passing through a transitional period. We who are in the midst of it cannot see clearly the battle as a whole. However, signs indicate certain definite trends. The fruit industry is moving rapidly to mechanization, to increased use of herbicides in growth controlling chemicals, and to the adoption of dwarfing root stocks and new varieties to meet changing needs.

“In all this, research, extension and teaching play sensitive and sympathetic lead roles. We feel confident that the fittest growers will emerge strong and viable and that the fruit industry, while changed; will be on an even sounder-than-ever footing.”

I hope that that conclusion is an accurate reflection or an accurate prediction of the future.

I’m really not prepared to take the chance. I think that’s really what the problem has been. Over the years the general feeling in much of agriculture, the tender fruit industry in particular, has been that left to its own devices with a minimum of government support it would emerge in its leading role and it would survive much of the problems that beset it for probably 20 years.

I’m not sure that’s true. I’ve had correspondence off and on with Mr. Sam Piott, whom I’m sure the minister is familiar with, the chairman of the Ontario Fruit Growers Marketing Board and with Mr. Matthie the secretary-manager of the Ontario Tender Fruit Growers Marketing Board. I’ve come to the conclusion, as I look at the problem, that it won’t go away on its own. Even though the strong will survive with the kind of urban pressures they are developing throughout the Peninsula, they will not be able in time to come to provide for the needs of a rapidly growing community.

What I’m really saying to the minister is I don’t pretend to have the answer. I think the answer is much more complex than perhaps I or any one member would be able to come up with. I think together we can probably come up with an answer that might well fit today’s needs and might provide some hope for people in the future.

I think that initially we have to come to a determination that we are not going to allow further erosion of what are considered to be top-grade growing lands in the Peninsula area. I think that’s the first thing we have to decide. Second to that, we have to come to the realization that that goal can’t be accomplished by simply hoping that the individual farmer will continue to farm or will sell to another farmer or there will be a coming together of a variety of different farms into one larger one. I don’t see that that is going to occur.

Nor will it occur satisfactorily simply by virtue of a zoning change. You can tell someone they can’t use their land for building factories or houses or roads or parking lots or supermarket chains, but the truth of the matter is that once they determine they are going to go out of the business, once they’ve come to that understanding with themselves, whether you force them to keep the lands sitting barren or whether you don’t isn’t going to improve or in any way add to the stock of land that we are going to have that’s going to be providing tender fruit for the next generation and perhaps generations to come.

I think what we’ve got to do is this, and I offer it to the minister only as a suggestion because I really don’t know how it would work yet, it might be in the best interest of the province to decide that we are going to hold land and then to go to the farmers throughout the Peninsula area, which we believe to be an area that has to be maintained and preserved, and say to them that we, the government of Ontario, will take out an option to purchase; that that option to purchase will last for the duration of their ownership, but it is an open option, which enables us to negotiate a fair price at the time of sale and guarantees that there won’t be the kind of pressure on the land by the developers.

It assures the government will be informed that there is the desire on the part of the current owner to sell, and gives us a chance -- us meaning you, really, I suppose, because at this stage I don’t have any input -- to know well in advance that the land is likely to be going out of production and gives you a chance to try to look around for a way to develop and incorporate it, if you will, into the total food bank.

The minister is going to come back to me and say that’s a very costly suggestion and, by God, I tell you I know it is. It’s a very costly suggestion.

It may require a great deal of legal work in order to make it substantial enough to hold up but I think the cost we would have to bear today in following a programme of that kind would be considerably less than the cost we will have to bear in 20 years’ time if we don’t follow a programme of that kind. The cost we will have to set out in dollars at this particular time, recognizing the high cost of land, recognizing the difficulties we would have, will be infinitely smaller than the overall initial dollar cost and the tremendous social cost we’ll have to carry if we don’t do it.

I speak to the minister; I speak obviously also to his assistant because I suspect that between the two of them they will want to talk about ways to resolve problems. I put this suggestion to you because I think it’s the only reasonable one. Given that I have an absolute and total commitment to the maintenance of which is left of the fruit belt in the Peninsula; given that I believe it is absolutely essential that we have a lever against the cost of imported produce; given that I recognize that we have all of the expertise right here in Ontario necessary to be competitive in world terms and certainly all of the expertise necessary to provide for the consumer needs of this province and perhaps this entire country, we can’t afford to see it deteriorate because of urban pressure and economic forces.

I also say to you that while in these ballpark figures -- I wouldn’t even want to guess what they will be -- the cost would appear to be astronomical. It obviously isn’t all going to have to be undertaken at any one time. It will be programmed. It will involve the province from time to time in the development and the acquisition of land.

I don’t even suggest, as I might in the field of housing, that the land ought to be held in perpetuity. I concede, in the interests of seeing something done, that if there were a way in which we could lease back or incorporate that land into existing operations with a guarantee that in the event it was sold there would be a return to the province, I’m prepared to see even that occur.

I am not prepared to run the risk that technology may not be able to keep pace with demand. Or that the ever-decreasing available land mass we have which is capable of producing what we need will be able to be fertilized, so cultivated and so developed that it will be able to meet the needs of whatever generation happens to want to live off it by way of food.

I don’t know how to put it to you any more strongly. I don’t want to fight with you, frankly. I’ve sort of given it up. I’ve decided I couldn’t beat you fighting so therefore I’m going to try to persuade you.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): Then never use logic.

Mr. Deans: I almost despair when I drive through my own riding. I know the member for Welland (Mr. Morningstar) -- who obviously is in the committee at the moment -- and I think, perhaps, the member for St Catharines (Mr. Johnston) and probably the member for Lincoln (Mr. Welch) would also share with me the feeling of despair when you drive through the Peninsula and you see farm after farm and you know dam well the options have been taken and within a short period of time that land will fall to the hammer, so to speak. It will be turned into another shopping centre or another warehouse or another subdivision or whatever.

I don’t want anyone to interpret this to mean that I am opposed to the development of subdivisions. I don’t want to hear that.

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Housing): I hope not.

Mr. Deans: The Minister of Housing says he hopes not and he knows that isn’t so. He doesn’t really have to hope it. He knows full well it isn’t so. What I am suggesting is -- I said it, I think, prior to your being here -- that the quality of the land doesn’t really matter when you are putting in a basement. It doesn’t really make much difference when you are putting in a parking lot but it certainly matters when you are trying to grow some foodstuffs, whether it be fruit or otherwise.

There is ample land for the development of housing. There is ample land for the development of industrial complexes. There is all kinds of land for shopping centres, much of it not fit to grow anything on. Therefore we are certainly faced with saying that good arable growing land is perhaps the most valuable resource that we have available to us. I suppose at this stage of what I choose to call euphemistically my political career, I am saying to the minister that if I can ever impress anything upon him, it is that it can’t be delayed any longer.

Recognizing what is the commitment of probably every member of the House, recognizing the rising food costs, recognizing the major problems that have confronted the fruit industry, knowing full well that the federal government has played an important role in causing much of the economic chaos, under- standing that we can’t zone the land and make them grow, knowing as I do that there are sufficient farmers in the area committed to maintaining something called a viable fruit-growing industry in the province, particularly in the Peninsula, I think you would find widespread support for any policy that would bring about a stabilization of the numbers of acres that are available for future growing.

Perhaps in addition to that there should be even a reclaiming, to whatever extent that it is fiscally possible, of some of the land that has been taken by Dominion Foundries and Steel, the Steel Co. of Canada, and any number of other people whose interest is in holding land rather than in growing -- perhaps a reclaiming of some of that.

I have made a suggestion in Saltfleet township and I put it to the minister. Obviously in Saltfleet township they are concerned about some form of equalizing industrial and residential assessment. And they are interested in easing the lot of the family living in a small home. So they have to have industrial assessment. I think it wouldn’t be unreasonable that the province, if its commitment reached far enough, and if, in fact, it was committed to ensuring the preservation of the best land, should enter into agreements with municipalities in which that land is situated, to determine ways of ensuring that the total cost of rapid urban growth won’t be borne entirely by the municipality and by its residents.

Now, it may be that some of the land for industrial development, some of the poorer quality land, may be somewhat removed from the most accessible points. Or if some of the poorer quality land may not be exactly where the developer wanted to build his housing scheme, I am suggesting to the government that you are going to have to, as an investment in the future, be prepared to set out some extra dollars to assist in the initial development of the land -- and which is not easily accessible or easily serviced.

Given that those things are recognized, I don’t doubt for a moment that we could look forward -- with the assistance of the people who are already in the field and growing -- to a pretty rosy future for the tender fruit industry, particularly the tender fruit industry in all of the Peninsula.

I said to the minister a couple of years ago and I say it again -- I am guessing but I think I am right -- there is no other place in the world that would allow such a valuable piece of property, valuable in the sense of its capacity to produce, to fall to the developer. But you wouldn’t see it.

My colleague, the Minister of Housing, and I travelled by train up the Rhine Valley, and we looked at the sides of the mountains and saw the vineyards. They were everywhere. They were perched on the edges of mountains. They were sitting on angles that one could hardly believe possible to cultivate. But the people of that area had come to a realization that it was important to maintain and develop them. And they developed every little inch that they could possibly develop.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: That’s the best place for growing grapes.

Mr. Deans: As I say, that is the best place for growing grapes. I am suggesting then that in the Peninsula, if it is not the very best place, by God it is pretty close, for growing a lot of tender fruits. Let’s not look back in 20 years or 25 years, or even less, and wish that we had done something which we could have done but did not do.

If I may, while I’m on my feet, Mr. Chairman, I want to introduce to the House a number of Scouts, the 88 Scout pack who are here from Hamilton and who are, hopefully, enjoying the Legislature. They are probably finding my speech very boring but no doubt --

Mr. Laughren: No, never.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Never; a tour de force.

Mr. Deans: -- the experience they will gain from watching this operation will carry them on well into the future and I would I ask the House to recognize them.

Mr. Chairman: Before the hon. minister replies I would recognize the member for Haldimand-Norfolk for just a brief moment.

Mr. J. N. Allan (Haldimand-Norfolk): Mr. Chairman, in the absence of the hon. Ministry of Labour (Mr. MacBeth), I would like to introduce, in the east gallery, a group of cubs from Etobicoke which is the hon. minister’s riding. Mr. Don Wingfield is with them.

Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. minister have a reply?

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Mr. Chairman, I welcome the comments by the member for Wentworth. One would, of course, agree with the general consensus of his remarks. They have been said many times in the past and many times, I suppose, they will be said in the future.

I would hope the action taken within the last year -- first of all, under pressure from our government the federal government decided to invite the tariff review board to look at the implications involved in imports of fruits into Canada. I suppose there has been nothing which has wrecked the fruit growing areas of the Niagara Peninsula more than the fact that there were imports pouring into this country from foreign countries. Our fruit growers simply could not compete with them for a variety of reasons, chief among them being, I suppose, the cost of labour if nothing else.

Today, the markets have opened up in other areas for some of that fruit and in some places they are becoming somewhat disenchanted with growing fruit the same as our Niagara Peninsula people did. There is some slackening off in the pressures from imports.

We were pleased to know that the federal government, through the tariff board, had these hearings in Ottawa which concluded, I believe, last February. We made specific recommendations at the meetings and had someone attending all the time with the input of our ministry to the decisions made -- we’re hopeful they were made. I don’t think a report has been submitted yet on those hearings.

We have some assurance, though, from the federal government that it recognizes the problem and is willing to do something about it. We hope effective action will be taken to preclude what has happened in the past.

We have embarked on a programme of developing the tender fruit industry. We have established a committee known as the Ontario Tender Fruit Development Committee. The chairman is Mr. Doug Williams, Chairman of the Ontario Food Council, who is sitting here at the table on my left. The secretary is Ted Chudleigh of the Ontario Fruit Council. The members are Mr. Sam Piott, chairman of the Ontario Tender Fruit Growers’ Marketing Board; Ted Tregunno, chairman of the Ontario Fresh Fruit Growers’ Marketing Board; Ron Moyer, chairman of the Grape Growers’ Marketing Board; R. R. Nelson, vice-president of Canadian Canners; Stan Duval, general manager of Niagara Food Products; Dr. John Archibald, director of the Horticultural Research Institute of Vineland and Mr. Ed Grant of Agriculture Canada.

This, as you will see, is a very broadly-based industry committee. The purpose is to redevelop the tender fruit industry in the Niagara Peninsula on an economically viable basis with special emphasis on the processing sector. This has been discussed here in this House previously and I have no notion of boring the House further with it, Mr. Chairman.

The clingstone peach variety is really the modem processing peach because it can be handled mechanically, virtually. We need to get into that production if we’re going to maintain the processing of peaches in Ontario. The purpose of the programme, again, is to redevelop the industry but we hope there will emerge from it at least 2,000 acres in clingstone peaches. We have the suitable varieties which we can harvest and handle and process mechanically.

This planting programme will start in 1975 and we expect the total production change for the processing crop will take at least 10 years. Then we should stabilize our production at what the market will absorb here in the Niagara Peninsula, at the processing industry. We would hope to capture at least one-third of the total processed fruit required in Canada at that time. If the market looks as though it can absorb more, I am sure there will be more planted.

To accomplish this objective we had to provide some assurance, some guarantees, to the nurseries who would grow the stalks to transfer into this clingstone peach variety. So we have embarked on a type of programme to assure them that they won’t be left out on the limb if anything should go wrong.

We have a new peach specialist. Dr. Stan Leuty, who is starting with our ministry at Vineland, and he will work closely with this programme because, as you can see, it is quite a major programme on which we are embarking.

A cold storage plant will likely be required, in addition to the plantings of these extra trees, in order that we can string out the processing season a little longer than has been the case in the past.

While my friend from Wentworth makes suggestions as to the government acquiring the land as it becomes available on the market and to hold it for fruit production, I would like to mention to him that there are other areas in Ontario which are most anxious to get into fruit production. In fact, they are embarking on that to some degree. I think particularly of Essex and Kent counties, where there are extensive orchards and also great vineyards being planted.

It would appear that the Essex and Kent people feel that if the fruit growers in the Niagara area feel that their land is worth more for something else, they will be glad to replace their fruit market.

I don’t think that position is shared -- certainly not by our ministry -- and I doubt if it is shared by many others. We do recognize that there is a uniqueness about the Niagara land -- because of the escarpment, because of the water, because of the climate, because of the quality of the soil. My friend is quite right; it is a unique area in North America.

But we believe that there are other ways that will generate the maintenance of interest in growing fruit and in expanding fruit production. We think that this can be accomplished by a satisfactory price level; I believe that the encouragement that has become evident in the last few months, I would say, is being reflected in the interest of producers in the area in embarking on this programme and indicating that they wish to participate in this programme.

I think that’s a true statement as to what is really happening today. I certainly have got this impression from the farmers in the Niagara Peninsula who are saying to us, “Well, this is the first real positive step that we can see that has emerged in the last two years.”

It is all due to the fact that there is some assurance at last that they are going to be protected from those imports which it is felt have been a disaster to the Niagara fruitland.

We feel that we are embarking on the right type of programme. And while my hon. friend suggests other ways of doing it -- and I don’t dispute that; there are other ways of doing it. That’s his suggestion. But we feel that this way of doing it may accomplish the same objective and perhaps not involve an expenditure of public funds to the degree which he readily admits might be the case.

Mr. Deans: I am interested in the minister’s comments. I’m not surprised by them; I’m disappointed, actually.

I’m disappointed for a number of reasons. I understand, as the minister does, that it is entirely possible that they will be able to develop an alternative growing area in Essex and Kent -- and perhaps to some extent in Huron. What concerns me is that at some point, some place, we have to make a stand. I know, as sure as I stand here, that some other member -- long after I am gone and forgotten -- will be standing up representing Essex or Kent or Huron and hell be saying in this House to the then Minister of Agriculture: “Do you realize that the urban sprawl in Essex and Kent and Huron is eating away at the very valuable farmland that we now have that is growing peaches and pears and whatever?”

There comes a point beyond which you cannot move. Let’s look at the Peninsula from two perspectives. If it is valuable as a fruit growing area and if it is somewhat unique then it certainly in itself is worth saving. It’s worth saving for other reasons, too. It’s worth saving because it provides the gateway to Ontario for many people who enter the province. It could be developed in such a way as to be perhaps the finest entrance, in addition to its economic viability, that the province could have been asked for.

As sure as I stand here, some of these farmers will hold out because they are fairly wealthy. Let there be no mistake. Some of them are fairly wealthy, and some of them will hold out for quite a long time. But a lot of them are borderline; they are struggling along and trying to make it. They are marginal, as my colleague says, and he’s right.

I don’t pretend to be an expert. I wish I were. I wish I knew more about it, but I can only go from the people who claim to be experts, or at least who claim to have some knowledge of it.

Let me quote you a couple of things that really struck me in an article sent to me by the tender fruit growers, for whom I am obviously not the spokesman, as you know. It is a reprint from the Ottawa Citizen of Nov. 12, 1973. It says:

“At one time Canadian-grown tender fruit -- peaches, pears, cherries, plums and prunes -- comprised 70 per cent of all tender fruit consumed in Canada. Foreign-processed fruit now owns 70 per cent of the market.”

In other words, the position has changed full circle, 180 degrees. At one time we had 70 per cent; now foreign imports have 70 per cent.

They go on to say: “Some researchers have predicted annihilation of Ontario’s tender fruit processing industry, followed by the destruction of the fresh fruit market.”

They then point to the fact that peaches, which make up about half the total receipts in tender fruit, are the centre of the problem. And there is a great deal said in the article, which I am not going to read but I commend to the minister for his own perusal at his convenience.

Let me read you some of the headlines that they quoted:

“Some See Ontario Tender Fruit Processing Death.” That’s from the Sault Ste. Marie paper of Nov. 8, 1973. “Tender Fruit Industry Having Market Troubles,” “Processing Fruit Cutback, Tonnage Down over 1973,” “Niagara Fruit Growers Want Stable Canadian Market,” and “Tender Fruit Industry Seeks Government Help” -- that’s from the Hamilton Spectator -- “Imported Canned Fruit Harms Ontario Industry; Niagara Canning Reduced,” “Fruit Future Bleak, Needs Stable Market.”

“Ontario Fruit Growers in Peril,” is a headline from the Orillia Packet and Times. “Canning Crops Reduce Processing in Niagara,” is a headline from the Post-Express in Lincoln. “Fresh Market Demands Threatened Peach Plants,” is from the Leamington Post and News.

These kinds of headlines reflect accurately, I think, the concerns felt by a lot of people, and obviously felt to some extent by the fruit growers. Let me quote to you from a letter sent to me over the signature of Mr. Piott, Mr. Sam Piott, who is on your advisory committee, dated Jan. 23, 1974. I’ll read it, it’s very short. It’s addressed to me, and says:

“The tender fruitlands of Ontario, including the Niagara Peninsula and Essex, Kent, Norfolk, Brant, Prince Edward and Simcoe counties, are responsible for almost 80 per cent of Canada’s production of peaches, pears, plums and cherries.

“Late in 1973 Canadian Press conducted an independent survey of the Ontario tender fruit processing industry, which takes much of its supplies from the Niagara fruitlands, and concluded that this important industry may disappear unless domestic markets can be ensured.

“I am enclosing for your review samples of reprints of pieces which were carried widely by daily newspapers in Canada [and I have quoted the headlines to you from those].

“The Ontario processing industry presently purchases nearly 30 per cent of all peaches grown in Ontario, 80 per cent of the pears, virtually all of the sour cherry crop and substantial amounts of plums and sweet cherries. Ontario tender fruit taken for processing in 1972 amounted to 33,600 tons, and alternative sales outlets for these crops do not exist because the variety is best suited for processing and not always attractive to consumers at the retail level.

“Preservation of the fruitland hinges on producers growing varieties suitable for the separate needs of the fresh and processing plants of the industry. Many varieties, including Jubilee, Elberta, and the 3,000 tons of clingstone peaches now being produced, Montmorency cherries and Kieffer pears are specifically processing crops. Other varieties of peaches, pears and sweet cherries have been developed for the fresh market. Without both forms of markets, economists predict that 20,000 acres of tender fruitlands cannot be maintained.

“Preservation of the fruitland is a key part of the official plan of the regional municipality of Niagara. The policy of the plan, now in its final stages of preparation, is to steer residential and commercial development away from prime fruitlands.

“The draft plan provides for future reviews of this policy if the fruit industry cannot be kept viable; zoning restrictions could be lifted, allowing fruit growers to sell their lands for other forms of development rather than being locked in through zoning regulations, to unprofitable use of the land.”

I’ll stop at that point for a moment, because that’s really what I was talking about earlier. Nobody in his right mind expects the farmer to continue to grow on land from which he frankly can’t gain any financial yield or return.

But, I am frankly worried because I sense in your answer that while you agree with me in the main that it would be nice to keep the Niagara Peninsula, you have despaired of that really ever happening and that little by little it would be eaten away. I want to assure you that little by little, it is being eaten away.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): You are looking at the alternatives already.

Mr. Deans: The fact that you are telling me there are alternative areas being developed indicates to me that in fact we have come to a conclusion that over the course of time that area, which is now yielding significantly, will gradually deteriorate.

We can blame the federal government for their policies and their policies are wrong. Their policies with regard to protection and tariffs are absolutely wrong and they contributed significantly to the problems confronting the farmers of the area. They have contributed to them, in fact, as long as I can remember. But their policies weren’t the policies which allowed the erosion of the land. Their policies made it economically difficult for the farmer to continue, but some farmers were able to. Not only large farmers, but some small farmers were able to continue in spite of the policies.

But the one thing the farmer cannot possibly stand up against is the tremendous cost of urban development. There is the tremendous economic pressure that he feels personally when the developer wanders in and offers him three times what his land is worth when it is in production. He offers him in one lump sum what he might, in fact, be able to earn in a lifetime of producing. I don’t blame him for selling. I understand the kind of personal feelings that must go into that. But we can’t afford it. It is that simple. We, the citizens of Ontario -- speaking on behalf of those who are here and those who are yet to come -- we can’t afford to allow it to go out of production.

As the minister says, his policy -- my policy -- his policy may well work. Maybe the changeover to different produce or to a different variety of produce will yield some result. But what, I hate to tell you, I don’t think it can possibly yield the desired result, which is that we will maintain our self-sufficiency -- or if not maintain it, reclaim our self-sufficiency, because we haven’t got it any more.

It wasn’t many years ago that we were, in fact, self-sufficient in the provision of tender fruit for the Canadian market. We no longer are, and there is no question that the consumers of Ontario will be the people who will suffer. It’s only when we can put up against the imported price a produce of our own that we can maintain anything called a reasonable purchasing price. The moment we become at the mercy of the growers of the United States, or of any other area, the moment that we are not competitive in terms of the production of the things that we have to have, then we will be paying through the nose for everything that we want -- and that’s my concern.

I will say no more about this, but I warn you and I’ll come back to haunt you -- I warn you in time to come you will look back and seriously regret taking circuitous measures to resolve what required positive steps. You can’t hope that by developing other strains or by developing other areas that we will be able to replace that which in itself is irreplaceable. I suggest to you, notwithstanding what you might think about the changes in the fertilizing industry and the production industry, in the farm industry in general, that you bloody well can’t reproduce the Niagara Peninsula. Once it is gone, you will regret it.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Kent.

Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent): Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister if we have the report of the food council for his department. I don’t want to reminisce, but our critic, the hon. member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Gaunt), announced last night that the average income of the farmer was $7,600 last year. I think the Ontario Federation of Agriculture --

Mr. Chairman: I understand that that’s not in these estimates. I am not sure where you would find that.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Later on.

Mr. Spence: Oh, later on. Then under this heading you are talking about the fruit industry in the Province of Ontario. In 1971 this Legislature passed the Pits and Quarries Act, and this year a number of townships were designated for pits and quarries, and after they were designated under this Act they could apply for a licence to open up gravel pits under this Act.

I brought this to the attention of the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier). In the fruit growing area in southwestern Ontario there were buyers who came in and bought this fruitland for gravel pits. I do know, Mr. Minister, that we must have gravel, but some of these buyers came in, bought the whole farm, stripped off all the topsoil and piled it up all around. Different properties had the same thing happen.

There were people in those areas who called me regarding the large amount of dirt around these farms that were bought for gravel and said that this had lowered the value of the other farms in that area. The Minister of Natural Resources says there are going to be some amendments to this Act in the fall, and I would like you to take an interest in that. I know you will, because it affects the value of other farms adjoining these areas where gravel pits are being opened up. I might say that it is hard for me to believe that they would have to strip a whole farm under this Act.

I don’t know too much about the Act myself, but it makes me wonder why they would have to strip the whole farm for gravel at one time and leave the mounds piled up along the highways, which is decreasing the value of other properties in the area. I hope, Mr. Minister, that when this amendment comes up you will look at this and watch with keen interest.

Mr. Chairman: Item 1?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I thought my friend from Kent was probably going to talk about the same thing as the member for Wentworth. That’s why I didn’t rise to my feet at the time. The member for Wentworth has spoken at some length about the loss of this fruitland in the Niagara Peninsula. We are all concerned with it, but by the same token the regional government of Niagara, as I understand it, is preparing very substantial draft plans of the land use in the area.

There is still land in abundance in this very area that will grow all the fruit that we can possibly handle in this country in the foreseeable future. It’s still there. The plans are strict enough that that land will be preserved for fruit growing. Some of the growers in the area have spoken to us and have let us know that they support the regional government in describing that land as agricultural food production land.

I believe that it can be done with severe enough local land use planning. It may have been that in the past, as my friend mentioned this afternoon before we adjourned at 6 o’clock, land zoning hadn’t worked in some areas, and it possibly didn’t have the strength of regional government behind it because the smaller municipalities seeking industrial assessment were, I think, at times tempted to change the zoning and allow industrial or commercial development to take place.

The larger regional government has the authority and has the strength and it can be done at the local level, and that, to me, is important. I am sure all of us share the concern that has been oftentimes expressed in this House, that local government should have the authority vested in it to make these decisions that are important to it and to the rest of the country, based of course on the resources of that particular area.

My friend mentioned the fact that the fresh fruit industry was important and it certainly is. By “fresh” I am talking about the fresh peaches that are picked and sold directly to the consumer in various ways. That, of course, is a very important aspect of the fruit industry of the Niagara Peninsula.

There are some other types of fruits that are also very important, but there has to be that balance between the fresh fruit market and the processing market. One is dependent, to a degree, on the other. But we have found a disturbing thing, I must confess, that came to my attention a few years ago -- that canners, when we talked to them about using the freestone peaches of the Niagara Peninsula, which have characterized this area and which are the finest fruit that can be grown anywhere in North America, said, “We simply cannot compete with that product now because our competitors are using the cling- stone peaches which are of such a type that they can be mechanically handled.” That’s part of the problem.

My friend mentioned the fact that we were self-sufficient in canned fruits. His memory is better than ours because never in living memory has Canada ever been self-sufficient in canned fruits. We have never gotten beyond, I believe, 30 per cent, and I think that was about 10 or 15 years ago. I believe that we are now about 20 per cent self-sufficient insofar as the canned fruits that are used in Canada are concerned. With this new programme which we just discussed a few minutes ago --

Mr. Stokes: Well, why did you say we had the facilities to produce all we could use?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: All we can use, exactly. But you can only use so much fruit at the time it can be grown. You can’t store fruit like you can wheat or barley or com, and use it for the rest of the year. You can only use it at the time it’s picked. We’re talking about a cold storage in which we hope to be able to put enough of that fruit to string out the canning season, but it won’t keep indefinitely. This is the problem with it, because it’s so perishable. And so there is no point in growing something and then, as has happened in the past, not be able to harvest a big crop. It had to lie on the trees and in some cases it fell off. And they say what a shame it is to see that fruit being lost. But to pick it, there really wasn’t any place to process it because every available storage spot was full, the processors were full, and what was the use? It’s a perishable product.

So, I think we have to restrict ourselves, bearing in mind the nature of the commodity we’re handling. We think that with sufficient storage space and using the land that’s there, using the varieties that are adaptable and satisfactory to the processing industry in modem times, that we can vastly increase the self-sufficiency of this country, and that’s our objective.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Essex-Kent.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Mr. Chairman, just while we’re discussing the fruitlands and so forth, I would just like to bring to your attention a bulletin that the Tender Fruit Institute sent out in May, 1974:

“Contrary to popular belief, fruitlands in the Niagara Peninsula are not rapidly disappearing. There has been a decrease of about five per cent in the overall acreage planted in tender fruits over the past 10 years. However, improved root stocks and growing methods have generally upped potential yields, more than offsetting the reduction in acreage.”

That’s an interesting point, and I think this is- really the case in a lot of agricultural things. If the market is there, fine.

I was glad to hear the minister announce that they are going into the cling-type peaches for canning purposes, because I think this is a bit of our problem in selling our canned fruit in Canada.

The cling type, for quality purposes, is the best. When you open up the can, it is just a little firmer peach, and from what I can gather from people who buy the imports and the Canadian ones, there seems to be a kind of reluctance to buy the Canadian freestone because it’s not so firm when it’s canned. The freestone peach is the best peach of all, I would think, for fresh fruit, but you can’t can it and you can’t put it through automatic peelers. It just isn’t possible to do that.

With the minister’s announcement, I recall a meeting we had a year or two ago with people from the Tender Fruit Association here in the buildings with a number of the members who have an interest in it, because they have fruitlands in their area. I recall drawing it to the attention of the growers at that time that we had to look at this and, of course, their reluctance was whether they were going to have a guaranteed market. And I can well understand that. A farmer can’t be expected to make an investment of $50,000 or $75,000 in a new orchard and not have a guaranteed market to sell at a price that was reasonable so that he could make a fair margin of profit.

I think that maybe we are stepping in the right direction. There are some new orchards going in our area in Essex and Kent counties. I saw one gravel pit that was rehabilitated into a golf course. They took all the top soil off and, after they took 12 ft of gravel out, they put it back on and made a golf course out of it. I suppose maybe they could have made an orchard out of it. I’m not sure, but it sure looks as if it could have been used for that purpose.

I think we are heading in the right direction if we have proper land-use planning. Any of the townships I am familiar with now have complete plans of their municipality where they set designated areas for residential, farming, industrial and commercial use. If we can get a little more action on the part of the Minister of Housing, Mr. Chairman, to approve the plans of many of these municipalities, I think we can control our future land quite well with good planning in the local municipalities, especially, of course, to protect grades 1 and 2 farmland. I would think that grades 3 and 4 are where we should be looking. I have always mentioned that maybe we should be looking at new satellite cities in areas where the land is probably grade 4 quality instead of extending the cities that are now in what we classify as grades 1 and 2 land.

Mr. Chairman: Item 1?

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Mr. Chairman, there is just one point on which I wanted to seek out the minister’s view on this matter. We’ve been talking about preserving the fruitlands in the Niagara Peninsula. Part of this problem, and the whole question of land-use planning, gets itself involved in whether or not farmers should be compensated for down-zoning. The minister has taken the position that they shouldn’t, that the Treasury here, or anywhere else for that matter, could not withstand that kind of pressure.

I tend to agree with the minister, but I think there are other alternatives to the problem where farmers are being pressured through urban sprawl and development actually to sell their farms to speculators and developers. If the minister and the government come along and index farmlands, which would be done if the farm classification committee report is implemented, then we are going to be running into this sort of problem, because we are going to be designating farmland as farmland and only under unusual circumstances or pressure would that classification be adjusted, I would presume.

I think there are some alternatives. The most attractive alternative, as far as I am concerned in this regard, is the proposition that was put forward in the Challenge of Abundance report in 1969 where farmers would be issued development bonds which would show the difference in value between the value as farmland and the value as development land. Then, if at some future date the farmer had to sell or if the land was reclassified, the farmer would be able to cash that bond which would show the difference between the two values.

That’s one solution. I think there are a number of other solutions which have been tried in some European countries. There is no perfect solution. I don’t think it’s a perfect solution, but it’s an interesting alternative to the kind of thing that the Ontario Federation of Agriculture has been saying where the government has to move in and compensate fanners for down-zoning.

I would be interested in getting the minister’s view. Is there any particular person within your ministry who is studying the alternatives? Has there been any particular person within the ministry who has actually studied this particular proposal? Because, really, it hasn’t been talked about too much since 1969, as I recall it at any rate.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we are taking a look at that and other ideas.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Huron.

Mr. J. Riddell (Huron): Yes, Mr. Chairman, I want to pursue a few matters that have been touched upon previously by both my colleague from Huron-Bruce and I believe by some of the members in the NDP.

The first one has to do with land-use planning. And we have had a little bit of discussion on land-use planning, although I haven’t discerned yet why it is that the Ministry of Agriculture and Food does not feel that it should get more involved in land-use planning.

Now, for example, let us take the hearing that was held last February or March in connection with the acquiring of land in the Primrose-Shelburne area, at the junction, I believe, of Highways 9 and 10, for the establishment of a park. I believe it is called Boyne River Park. I understand that the Minister of Agriculture and Food did not have any of his officials at this hearing, and I can’t for the life of me see why the Ministry of the Environment should be the only one that is involved in deciding whether good farmland is used for the development of a park.

In talking about the farm classification report, the minister said that he agreed with the report with the exception of recommendation 11, which gave the Minister of Agriculture and Food veto powers over land to be used for development. And my question is, if the Minister of Agriculture and Food doesn’t become involved in the decision-making process as to what lands are going to be retained for farming purposes and what lands are going to be used for development purposes, then who in the world is going to make the decision? I would think surely the Minister of Agriculture and Food should take the responsibility of making the decision because, after all, this farmland should be given top priority.

Now on to another matter. Again, I don’t know how this problem is going to be resolved because you indicated that you do not agree with stabilization programmes at the provincial level, and that it should be done at the national level. I am not going to dis- agree with you, but how can our pork producers possibly compete?

Mr. Chairman: Order please. Does that have anything to do with marketing? I believe it does.

Mr. Riddell: It is policy. We discussed this before.

Mr. Chairman: Well, it could come under agricultural marketing programme, I think, from what the member’s comments are.

Mr. Gaunt: He is talking about stabilization.

Mr. Riddell: That is right. We have been dealing with stabilization. We might as well stay with it.

Mr. D. A. Paterson (Essex South): Stay in the stable a little longer.

Mr. Chairman: Stabilization of what?

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Take it from the farmers, Russell. They are right.

Mr. Riddell: How can our pork producers possibly compete when you have provinces like Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta all with some kind of stabilization programme for their pork producers?

We could wait for ever and a day for the federal government to propose some national farm stabilization programme, and in the meantime our pork producers are suffering a very great loss because they simply cannot compete with the provinces that do have a provincial programme of their own. So I am just wondering what you feel we should be doing for our pork producers in this regard?

Mr. Chairman, there is one other matter I want to touch upon and I am not sure what section it comes under because I am not even too sure it comes under the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, but I feel that it should. That’s this matter of a wolf bounty. Now --

Mr. B. Gilbertson (Algoma): Hear, hear, you are right on.

Mr. Chairman: That’s definitely under Natural Resources.

Mr. Riddell: All right, Mr. Chairman, I agree.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. There is an item --

Mr. Riddell: Who pays the money out, then, for any claims on losses of livestock due to wolves?

Mr. W. Hodgson (York North): The Minister of Agriculture and Food.

Mr. Riddell: Is this the Minister of Agriculture and Food or the Minister --

Mr. W. Hodgson: No, it is the Ministry of Natural Resources.

Mr. Riddell: Ministry of Natural Resources. Well, my contention is that this should come under the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, because what is happening now is that if a farmer has a claim and he approaches the Ministry of Natural Resources, with all the red tape that he has to go through it’s some time before he gets remunerated for his losses. Then, if he has a second claim, the Ministry of Natural Resources won’t do anything about it unless the farmer has indicated that he has done something about trapping these wolves.

Now, what in the world does a farmer know about trapping wolves? And, in the second place, how much time has the farmer got to go out trapping wolves?

Mr. Paterson: It’s a good job for the parliamentary assistant.

Mr. Riddell: I maintain, and not only do I maintain but the Ontario Federation of Agriculture also maintains that this programme should come under the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. I am wondering what your feelings are, because I have been receiving all kinds of letters, as I’m sure you have, from farmers who are encountering very great losses of livestock due to wolves. I am not satisfied that the Ministry of Natural Resources is the place that these particular claims that are made by farmers should come under. I believe it should be the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Prince Edward-Lennox.

Mr. J. A. Taylor (Prince Edward-Lennox): If I might ask a question of the minister on that point, seeing as how we have raised the question of wolves --

Interjections by hon. members.

An hon. member: Do you have a lot of wolves down there?

Mr. Taylor: I am following in the tradition of my predecessor, who was sometimes pre-occupied with wolves, and no doubt for a just cause, because of the problem that they pose to the sheep farmers in Prince Edward county. I was wondering if the minister could indicate the input of his ministry, insofar as assessing the value of animals that are compensated for through the Ministry of Natural Resources and any changes that might be brought about to speed up the processing and develop a fairer evaluation of destroyed livestock?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, may I answer the last question first, as it is fresher in my mind. The member for Prince Edward-Lennox asked what has been done, and I would like to advise the House, through you, Mr. Chairman, that the member for Prince Edward-Lennox was one of three of the members of our caucus who, with myself, visited with the Minister of Natural Resources and members of his staff to try and determine a more satisfactory way of settling the claims of those who have lost livestock due to wolf predation. Obviously, the present method leaves much to be desired.

We are proposing that legislation be drafted whereby there will be one evaluator, and that will be the local municipal evaluator, to determine the amount of the loss and whether it should be paid by the local municipality or whether it should be paid by the Ministry of Natural Resources and see how that can be satisfactorily done. We think that there is a way to do this. We are in the process of drafting the legislation now. There have been several meetings between the staffs of the two ministries and we agree that something has to be done to straighten that matter out.

Mr. Stokes: What about predator control?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I want to thank my friend from Prince Edward-Lennox for having drawn it to the attention of the Ministry of Natural Resources and to have been able to, we hope, resolve the matter.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): We want to join in that tribute.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I didn’t catch the --

Mr. Stokes: What about predator control?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Predator control?

Mr. Stokes: Rather than payment after the fact?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I understand there is an active programme of predator control in the Ministry of Natural Resources, but this is something that I am sure was dealt with during the minister’s estimates last week before the committee. In fact, I think they were there for two or three weeks, and I am sure that these points were dealt with.

But they do have a group of predator control officers who will assist the farmer to establish various means of trapping or controlling these animals -- and some of them have proven rather successful. I have seen pictures of wolves who have been caught in these traps that are proposed by the staff of the Ministry of Natural Resources.

With regard to the Boyne Park hearing, my friend probably wasn’t aware that Herb Crown, the director of our ARDA branch, was in attendance at that meeting, and that I had, as the Minister of Agriculture and Food, a very personal input into the decisions that have now been made concerning the Boyne Park with the Ministry of Natural Resources. I think the arrangements that have now been made will be much more satisfactory than probably had been thought at the outset of the complaints, which I think were quite legitimately raised by some of the people who were concerned about the loss of prime agricultural land.

I am sure that the member for Wellington-Dufferin (Mr. Root), who is in the House tonight, made very great representations to the Ministry of Natural Resources, and I believe the matter has been satisfactorily resolved. We were on top of the situation all through the piece. While we weren’t making a very big noise about it we were getting things done, and I think that’s the important thing about the whole thing.

Mr. Renwick: Naturally, I understand that. It is usual with your programmes; you are on top of them and you are getting things done all the time.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: So, in regard to recommendation 11 of the Kowal report, if the ministry is not to make decisions -- and my friend must have missed what I said this afternoon, because I did refer to that recommendation. While I said that I was not in favour of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food doing as Kowal suggested- -- and that is being completely responsible for all land-use planning in the Province of Ontario, including subdivision control, and all the rest of it -- I did feel, and I stress this very much, that as far as our ministry was concerned I felt we had to have a very much greater input into decision-making concerning whatever is done with land in the future.

The question concerning pork producers competing with other provinces I dealt with this afternoon. I emphatically believe that any province that embarks on a stabilization programme for any commodity in which the federal government has a programme -- as the federal government now has a programme announced and in effect -- that that province should not receive anything over and above what the federal government is ready to pay on a national basis.

I believe that the feeling is shared by other provinces as well; otherwise we’ll just simply have one province competing with another and the federal plan is meaningless. And so our suggestion to the federal government -- and they agree with this, because they have told us that we are on the right track -- is that there should be one stabilization programme --

Mr. Renwick: Yes, because that happens to coincide with what they want.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: -- and that those provinces that are involved in it now should bring their programmes in line. If they want to go beyond it, then they’ll get so much less from the federal government. That’s the answer as we see it.

Mr. Chairman: Item 1. The hon. member for Thunder Bay.

Mr. Stokes: Yes. I am not proposing to be an expert on anything pertaining to agriculture, since most areas of my riding are unsuitable for agricultural purposes; but I did get a request, Mr. Minister --

Mr. Renwick: We have a lot of agriculture in the riding of Riverdale.

Mr. Stokes: Will you bring the member for Riverdale to order please?

Mr. Renwick: I was saying that distinguishes your riding from mine. We have a lot of agriculture in my riding.

Mr. W. Hodgson: And in Donald MacDonald’s, too.

Mr. Stokes: I did get a request from people up in --

Mr. Renwick: I wish the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald) were here tonight.

Mr. Stokes: -- the Upsala area, which is about 90 miles west of the city of Thunder Bay, where, at one time, the champion potato growers -- I don’t know whether it was for all of Ontario --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Stokes: -- or whether it was just for northwestern Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Is that the Charlton area?

Mr. Renwick: North America.

Mr. Stokes: In Upsala.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Upsala, oh, sorry; I didn’t catch it.

Mr. Stokes: Yes. It’s about 90 miles west of the city of Thunder Bay. But apparently at one time they were renowned for their ability to grow a top quality potato, and some of the potatoes were sold far and wide for seed purposes.

Now, since some of the people in the area were looking for other alternatives -- it is an unorganized rural community -- and since they were looking for other alternatives to lend more viability to the area they asked me if I wouldn’t prevail upon you, as the Minister of Agriculture and Food, to see whether such a programme would be viable. I think I wrote to Mr. Crown and Mr. Crown referred me to the agricultural representative in the city of Thunder Bay. He was to get in touch with those people to discuss some of these ideas with them.

I was up there two weeks ago with your colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources, when we were opening a sawmill there and they said that the agricultural rep from the Thunder Bay area hadn’t been in to see them. I am wondering, what kind of a system does the government provide? What kind of technical advice does the minister provide to people who would be anxious to get into agricultural production in products where they might be able to compete?

I understand that even in northwestern Ontario we don’t grow all of the potatoes that we require for our own use. As a matter of fact, I’m told that local producers find it extremely difficult to compete with potatoes that are grown in the Maritimes. This is a marketing thing. It is a very complex thing and I don’t expect the minister to have the answers to it.

Where there is a willingness and where in the wisdom of the officials of your ministry you feel there is a possibility of developing a potential to satisfy the local market, is there any way that the minister can assist these people, either by technical advice or finally through ARDA possibly, to provide them with some kind of economic incentive? I am sure that they would need technical advice of a sophisticated kind before they would get into any kind of an undertaking. They had in mind a potato-processing plant that would be settled in mid-Canada and perhaps provide much needed jobs for the area.

Since the climate is ideal for this kind of production and I’m told the soil is ideal, I’m wondering, is there any way in which your ministry would assist in giving them the kind of advice or the kind of caution, whichever way you look at it, that they may need?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I should think that the latter would probably be more appropriate as far as a processing plant is concerned in that particular area. I would say that there is great potential for expanded potato production to meet the local market requirements in that area. Perhaps some of the finest potatoes grown in Ontario are grown in the Thunder Bay area. I have seen some magnificent potatoes grown in that area, by the hundreds of acres, too.

Mr. Stokes: Yes.

Mr. Renwick: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: As a matter of fact, one of the chaps from our own constituency of Middlesex South in the Strathroy area has gone to the Thunder Bay area. They have at least 300 acres of land. The last time I visited their farm it was practically all in potatoes -- just a magnificent crop.

Mr. Renwick: They are in Upsala.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: They have got their own storage, their own processing, packaging and all the rest of it.

Mr. Stokes: They have about 1,000 acres in production at the present time.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: It is tremendous and yet, even with that, I understand they can’t meet the fall and winter demand of the Thunder Bay market and the surrounding area. They have still to depend on outside markets to bring it in.

I talked to some of those potato growers. There are opportunities there. I am sure that our staff through the extension branch would in every possible way provide every service to them in soil testing, analysis work and getting them established into potato-growing, providing they have the type of soil and the right kind of drainage to go into potato production.

Mr. Stokes: I don’t want to belabour the thing but, would the minister assure me that I can tell these people that all of the expertise of your ministry will be available to them and that you will be contacting these people?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, if my friend would give me the names of the people involved, I would be glad to see that someone visited them.

Mr. Stokes: Thank you. We’ll do that.

Mr. Renwick: Is the minister on top of it? Is the ministry on top of it?

Mr. Chairman: Is item 1 carried?

The hon. member for Essex South.

Mr. Paterson: Much has been discussed about potatoes in the last hour or so. I just wonder if the minister has taken into consideration the cost of shipping produce and, in particular, potatoes. I think this may be of some interest to the northern members.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I am wondering, Mr. Chairman -- and I don’t want to interrupt my friend as I would like to discuss it with him -- if we might more appropriately deal with that in the food council vote when it comes along?

Mr. Renwick: Sure.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: We are dealing with the main office here, and if we could work that one in later on, I think it would be appropriate, if my friend doesn’t mind.

Mr. Chairman: Does item 1 carry?

Item 1 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Item 2?

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, where does the warble fly control programme come?

Mr. Chairman: Any time now.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: After supper tomorrow night.

Mr. Renwick: The only reason I asked is that I was assured six years ago it was under control, and I now understand that it is out of control.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Renwick: I want to feel free to discuss the matter.

Mr. Chairman: We will let the hon. member for Riverdale know when it comes up.

Mr. Spence: Mr. Chairman, under item 2, I see that there’s $92,300 more estimated for expenditures in this item this year over last year. Are there going to be more publications, or is it the cost of printing the publications that you have been distributing, or have you hired more staff?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: The $20,000 of that in- crease is due to expansion of the market information service to cover the requirements of the market today. We have got a very extensive market reporting service and it is going across very well. The remaining increases are due to the salary increases, the increased costs of travelling and the production of the material that is being sent out.

Mr. Chairman: Item 2?

Mr. Deans: May I ask a question?

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Went- worth.

Mr. Deans: Under which vote would the minister like to talk about the Ontario food basket operation?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: The food council.

Mr. Deans: Under the food council?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes, at the same time we discuss potatoes.

Mr. Deans: That’s under vote 1702, is it? I don’t have my book in front of me.

Mr. Renwick: That’s the catch-all basket of the ministry.

Mr. Chairman: For the information of the member for Riverdale, in vote 1702, there’s an item on warble fly control.

Mr. Renwick: In 1702? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: It’s the next vote, as soon as we get through this one. Does item 2 carry?

Item 2 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Does item 3 carry?

Item 3 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Item 4?

Item 4 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Does item 5 carry? Financial and administrative services.

Mr. Gaunt: On financial and administrative services, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask a question here. The item is up substantially. Salaries and wages are up $109,000. That’s a little bit more than just the normal inflation, I would think.

Has the minister taken on some extra staff? What accounts for that rather large jump in financial and administrative services salaries and wages?

Also in services, I note that services is up substantially from what it was last year. It is up about $43,000. How is this item of services made up?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I can explain this to you. About $77,000 has been transferred out of the extension branch into this administration branch and that has to do with the capital grants programme -- administration, clerical, checking and all the rest. The administrative services are up $20,000 because of the increased costs of mailing.

Computer services that were previously provided by other ministries are now charged to our ministry on a unit cost increase based on 56 per cent of the 1973-1974 figures, and the estimated cost in here is $32,400. I would hope that that would do the job.

There is one additional key punch machine operator to deal with the development of some of the livestock testing programmes we have. There is, I believe, a retirement for one senior secretary provided in this. Those are the increases that are reflected in the costs here.

Mr. Chairman: Does item 5 carry?

Item 5 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Does vote 1701 carry?

Vote 1701 agreed to.

On vote 1702:

Mr. Chairman: Agricultural production programme, item 1, administration.

Mr. Gaunt: Here it is the reverse, Mr. Chairman. There is a big drop in the administration costs associated with the agricultural production programme. Last year it was $267,300 for salaries and wages and this year it is only $79,900. What accounts for that?

Transportation and communication also reflects the drop in salaries and wages. It is away down also. Last year it was $169,100; this year it is only $47,700, which is a substantial drop.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: We have transferred the inspection service to capital grants out of administration and into extension in the advisory services under item 2. You will find that in extension.

There has been an increase there because there has been a transfer from the administration section down to the extension branch section. Simply a bookkeeping entry. That will account for the concern expressed.

Mr. Gaunt: Salaries in the extension end have not increased that much. The transportation has increased substantially, but I can’t equate the two. I don’t see that there has been an increase in the extension corresponding to the drop in the administration. There must be some --

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I don’t have the figures from last year my hon. friend is referring to. They are here, but I don’t have them in front of me. I have the figures for this year and I have the actual for 1972-1973, and the 1973-1974 estimates, but I don’t have the actual breakdown of salaries and wages under the administration vote to which you refer.

Mr. Spence: Mr. Chairman, could I ask the minister what vote the food council comes under?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Vote 1704.

Items 1 and 2 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Item 3 carried?

Mr. Paterson: Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman: Yes?

Mr. Paterson: Concerning agricultural man- power, could the minister verify for me as to whether or not there has been an increase in the subsidy for housing for migrant workers? Has that been negotiated out and agreed to in the past few weeks?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I don’t really think it is finalized. But I understand there are discussions and negotiations going on with the federal Manpower office to try and resolve the matter of immigrant workers coming here. I don’t know whether my staff can tell me any of the latest details in this, but it’s still under negotiation. That’s the best we can do.

Mr. Paterson: Specifically, I want to know the grant for housing. I think it was $100 or $150 per unit. Has that been increased?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: It has been increased last year from $30,000 to $60,000 and remains at that figure for this year.

Mr. Paterson: But there has been no increase in the amount per unit per man to the farmer?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: It went from a per man basis to a unit basis of $5 a square foot. It is almost double. From about $150 to $300 per man unit. It’s roughly double what it was last year.

Mr. Paterson: Has that memo been sent out to the ag-reps and the people who are interested in this programme?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: We have a man in the field doing nothing else. I assume that has been done in the areas in which there would be interest.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, the minister probably dealt with this in his opening statement, but what is the gut part of this controversy between his ministry and the federal government on the question of immigrant manpower which has been highlighted in the press? Could we, perhaps, have an accurate, realistic description of the kind of problem which this ministry has created in the field of immigrant manpower in the agricultural industry, to create this kind of controversy with the federal government about the quality of life the immigrant farm help is faced with in the Province of Ontario?

After all the new parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations won the Heywood Broun prize on the question of exposing the life conditions of immigrant farm workers in the Province of Ontario. Could you bring us up to date on the latest revolution of this controversy with the federal government?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I wouldn’t think there is any revolution at all. There may have been some difference of opinion concerning the accuracy of the reporting done by the federal government’s Manpower group which went to the Essex county area and described varying conditions. They were not substantiated, incidentally, by the newspaper people who followed along to see whether or not there was accuracy involved in the report.

I believe the first report was grossly exaggerated. I think it was blown out of all proportion. I think it did very great harm to the agricultural community of Essex county and other areas where immigrant labour has been employed. It has, in my opinion, contributed greatly to the concern being expressed by many of the people in that area who depended on this help to come in. They volunteered to come in and were delighted to have the opportunity to earn the money available to them over that short period of harvesting. Then they could take off and go back to their native countries. To me it was quite unfortunate that it happened.

On the other hand, we have certainly improved housing conditions in a variety of ways and we are hopeful there will be acceptance given to the requests by the producers in those areas for this immigrant labour to come back to Ontario to carry out harvesting procedures. Otherwise, I just don’t know how those crops are going to be harvested, quite frankly.

Mr. Renwick: Nobody questions that.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I think it was a most unfortunate incident and, frankly, I deplored what had happened.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I find that quite inadequate. What are the policies of this government with respect to the standards which it is prepared to impose on the farming community, recognizing that the farmers in Essex county have the vote and the immigrant farm labourers don’t have the vote? What are the standards you are proposing to impose to assure an adequate part, an adequate quality of existence for those persons in the temporary period when they are here? Surely the minister can’t stand up and say fatuously to us, “Of course, I don’t know how the crops will be harvested.”

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): There is that word again. You were using that word last night, too.

Mr. Renwick: Yes, it applies to both sides of the House on occasion.

I don’t see how you can stand up and say “I don’t know how the crop will be harvested without the assistance of immigrant farm labour,” Everybody understands that; otherwise there wouldn’t be a problem about it.

The obligation of the ministry is to require a certain standard both of wages and of living conditions when they are here. It has always been the story about immigrant farm labour that they should be very happy to come and save all their money and then go back, as the minister so euphemistically stated, “to their native lands” -- as though they were returning to some kind of jungle existence. If they have an economic function to perform in the Province of Ontario, this ministry has an obligation to require that the living conditions, in addition to the wages which are paid, are adequate and meet the land of standard which we require in the Province of Ontario.

All I am saying to the minister is, don’t fool around with the problem. Don’t say that somehow or other the federal government departments charged with the responsibility of dealing with manpower and immigration are exaggerating the conditions which exist in the Province of Ontario. Why don’t you stand up and face up to the problem and say, “These are the problems that we have with the federal government; these are the inadequacies of our policies with respect to immigrant farm labour in the Province of Ontario; this is what we are going to do about the problems in order to solve the problems”?

The minister can’t escape it. We are no different than any other area of the world which imports immigrant farm labour. They tend to get the short end of the stick. It has been documented time and time again, and there is no use in the minister simply saying to us, “Oh well, the press exaggerated, and the federal Ministry of Manpower and Immigration with the major responsibility exaggerated. What we are doing now is providing some increased funds in order that there will be slightly more adequate housing accommodation and the people should be terribly happy and lucky to come here and work in the harvest lands of the Province of Ontario and disappear back into their country happy to take the few dollars out with them. The minister knows that is inadequate.

He has moved so far on the question of the fruit lands and land use in three years. Why can’t he now move affirmatively, in a civilized manner, to deal with the question of immigrant farm labour in the Province of Ontario? And why can’t he tell us who are the major importers of farm labour in the Province of Ontario? Are they tied to the major canning industries in the Province of Ontario? Is it simply a form of cheap labour which is demanded by the agricultural industry in order to maintain their profits? Or is there some real problem which is involved?

I think the minister actually believes that there is a major problem, but he won’t face up to it any more than his colleague, the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch), faced up to the problems of the Indian communities later on. It is the kind of middle-class blind-eye attitude that we have toward those persons who perform essential functions in the community. We pretend that it is so very nice in the hot days of summer to harvest crops in the Province of Ontario that everybody should be just delighted and glad to be here. Can’t we have a definitive statement about the problem?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I don’t know what kind of a definitive statement the hon. member wants. The medical officers of health inspect all of the quarters and all of the housing to which Canada Manpower has referred people. Those standards apply.

Mr. Renwick: They disagree.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: No, they don’t disagree.

Mr. Renwick: Well, what is the controversy?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: The controversy was around those people who were living in housing conditions which had not been inspected last year.

Mr. Renwick: Isn’t that your responsibility?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: No, it is not our responsibility at all. The medical officer of health approves every one of the accommodation buildings that are put up for temporary or seasonal help in which we make a contribution financially. Every one of them has to meet a certain standard for hygiene, for water, sewage -- all the rest of it. Today any accommodation that is provided for those people who were referred by Canada Manpower comes under the inspection of the local medical officers of health.

I think that is assuming the responsibilities for which we have been charged. Certainly there is an abundant agreement worked out with the federal Minister of Manpower and Immigration and his staff concerning all of these matters -- the wages, housing, working conditions -- all of these are a part of the agreement. It would seem to me that sufficient attention has been paid to it.

Of course, they may not all be optimum places to locate, but for people who come in for just a period of time and who, incidentally, are willing to do the work that many Canadians are apparently not willing to do --

Mr. Renwick: We understand that.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: -- then I think the facilities provided in most cases, as far as we are concerned and from what our observations have been, would appear to be reasonable.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would just like to say something about the same subject since the hon. member for Riverdale has raised it.

I remember well the story in the press last summer from the Manpower offices. The minister particularly was involved and it concerned me because the tobacco farmers, as much as any other group, are anxious to import labour. Some of it is from just outside the province, not necessarily from outside the country. Many of these people have facilities on their own farms for the labourers to be housed and fed.

I would be the last to say that I accept any responsibility for inspecting the facilities but as I call from farm to farm I often have an opportunity to talk with the people who do work under those circumstances and to the farmers involved with the other side of the responsibility. I think it’s true that some of them are housed under circumstances in which, let’s say, the sanitary facilities are not what you would call “flush” facilities.

Mr. Deans: They’re truly not.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Yes, right.

Mr. Foulds: Neither plush nor flush.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I didn’t say “plush” and didn’t intend to.

As you talk to the people in the bunk-houses and so on, the responsibility, as the minister says, is with the medical officer of health to see that they are properly inspected on that basis. I have never been in a situation in which I have felt the people were being exploited from the point of view, I suppose, that I would observe it. I have often been in a farm kitchen at mealtime when the farm wife is putting on dinner for 15 or 20 people and there seems to be a good feeling associated with that.

I’ll tell you it may well be, on the point the member for Riverdale has made, that obviously, the province must take some responsibility to see, in those areas of the province where there’s a heavy concentration of itinerant labour -- I don’t think immigrant labour is the best phrase to use -- that we are not permitting facilities to fall below a standard which we feel is a part of the standard of living we would expect and require from any other section of the community. I also think it’s the minister’s responsibility to see that wherever possible -- if it is possible, with the salaries and wages being paid -- there is an ample number of these people available to do the work.

We’re sometimes impressed when a tobacco farmer says, “I don’t see why I can’t get enough help. I’m offering $26 a day and room and board.” If you divide it even by eight hours, the hourly rate is not that overwhelming when you know any high school kid can go out and get $4 or $5 an hour doing something considerably less onerous than priming tobacco and working in all sorts of weather. I suppose the farmers themselves, realizing they are pressed with increased costs, including labour costs, are trying to leave something for their own use.

I don’t want the discussion to digress from the quality of the living facilities. I would agree with the member for Riverdale that the Minister of Agriculture and Food does have a responsibility which can’t wholly be shifted off to the federal jurisdiction simply because Manpower does provide or at least offers a service for the provision of itinerant farm workers. We have a responsibility to assist with the inspection and to maintain a provincial standard which might even be higher than the federal standard. I hope it would be.

The other side of the coin is to see that from this budget we have programmes which are going to do everything possible to have the kind of labourers available, skilled and unskilled, to get in the crops. I’m sure the minister himself received calls from tobacco farmers and others who saw their crops being lost in the fields and, with the coming of cold weather in the fall, the danger of frost under circumstances in which it was really appalling. There simply wasn’t anybody available at $26 a day and full board to go out and do the priming to save the crop. I don’t want to imply, Mr. Chairman, that a large percentage of the crop was lost because of this, but I know there are farmers in my area who did lose a percentage of their crops simply because they couldn’t get any help to harvest it at any price.

There used to be, as you know, in the towns of Delhi, Tillsonburg and so on, almost an old-fashioned labour pick-up exchange. The farmers would go in with their pick-up trucks early in the morning and there would be people lying in the parks, sleeping in the parks, who would be prepared to go out for a day’s work. That has been better organized and Manpower offices have provided a more coherent, rationalized facility so that people can register for employment and perhaps express certain preferences.

The farmers themselves, I think, have learned that unless their facilities come up to a certain standard, the food is good, the hours regular and the working conditions pleasant, they’re not going to get anybody to work on their farm anyway. The competition even over the line fence is very severe, where one farmer will go over and say, “Listen, I see you’ve been at my neighbour’s place for a couple of days. You come over here and I’ll give you $3 a day extra and there’ll be wine on the table at every meal.”

I don’t know what persuades them to move. Maybe it’s the dollars, maybe it’s some other attraction -- and I haven’t listed them all by any means -- that enters into the competition.

I would agree with the hon. member for Riverdale: The province has a responsibility to see that a minimum standard is established and enforced, and also to bend every effort to see that people are aware of good employment opportunities -- itinerant farm labour opportunities that, in my opinion, can be improved but are strictly competitive in this province. The farmers are hard-pressed to get their crops in. I hope there will be even more supervision and assistance under the budget that we’re discussing.

Is this under advisory services? Agriculture manpower, $142,000. That ought to provide a certain amount of inspection and assistance.

I would like to hear the minister’s comments, particularly on the advertising of available employment during the crop harvest season, so that when we come into the fall season this year, we’re not going to have these panicky calls from farmers saying, “I’ve got to have some help to get my crops in.”

Mr. Spence: Mr. Chairman, under this heading, I spoke to the minister early in the year about tobacco growers who brought students from Belgium to this country last year and they proved very satisfactory. I gave the minister telephone numbers of tobacco farmers who tried to get these students again this year, and were told they couldn’t come. They could only locate in the Delhi area. I haven’t heard anything more about it, but the minister was looking into it, and I haven’t heard any report.

I wonder if these students are going to be allowed to come again this year. They want to come. They entered into a contract last year with the growers, and this year they’re ready to come back. But these tobacco growers say that Manpower says the students can’t come to the Kent area this year to harvest flue-cured tobacco. The only place they could locate was in the Delhi area.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Maybe I had better catch up on a few of these questions, Mr. Chairman.

With regard to the hon. member for Kent and the problem in not being able to have the same people go back to the same place. I understand that Manpower issues permits for foreign people to come here to various agencies or groups within their country or within their embassies. Those people control where those immigrants are going to go. It is not done through Manpower and we don’t have anything to do with it in our office either. That’s through the federal-provincial manpower committee. That’s a local matter between the people involved with the country and the immigrants and where they place them. Unfortunately, the loss to the people that you mentioned in your area would be a gain to the other people in another area. It’s just one of those things that we can’t direct.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What possible reason would there be?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I don’t know. I just don’t understand that. It’s one of those things they develop themselves.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Did you say it is a federal-provincial committee?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: We have a federal-provincial manpower committee.

Mr. Renwick: That’s what I want to hear about. Who sits on it?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: We also have committees established. Local labour pools are set up in Kent, Essex, Elgin, Norfolk -- there are two pools in Norfolk -- Niagara, Leeds, Quinte, Lindsay and Peterborough areas. These federal-provincial manpower committees are responsible for organizing these pools --

Mr. Renwick: Who sits on them? What representatives of what ministry?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes, on the LAMB committee. Local agricultural manpower boards. That’s what they are called, local agricultural manpower boards. The local people sit on those committees; and the representatives of Canada --

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, are there representatives from the federal Manpower and Immigration ministry?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes. And there are representatives of our ministry.

Mr. Renwick: What exactly is the controversy if we have these co-operative --

Hon. Mr. Stewart: There isn’t a controversy now. There was a controversy last fall.

Mr. Renwick: The federal Minister, Mr. Andras, was reported only a very few days ago as speaking about the problems which would arise with respect to the immigration to the Province of Ontario of -- and I accept the term of the member for Brant -- itinerant farm labour and the quality of life they were going to be experiencing while they were here. Surely, Mr. Andras is not playing politics because at the federal level they never play politics about an issue such as this. The important thing is that in this Legislature we understand, on this vote, the exact nature of the problem. I get the impression that the

Minister of Agriculture and Food not only doesn’t know, he’s not interested.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Of course, I am interested, very much interested. I don’t know what more can be done. We have co-operated in every possible way in the federal-provincial manpower committees. We are working with the Ministry of Health to develop standards which would be employed and would provide uniform, clean and comfortable housing. That is a fact of life.

Under the federal-provincial programme we are working with Canada Manpower to develop these farm labour pools I have just mentioned. The standards set up for all accommodation for labour coming in here -- itinerant labour, if you will; seasonal farm help we call it -- meet the requirements of the local medical officer of health. That is a fact of life. That is something which is different this year from what was in application last year.

Mr. Renwick: That is a provincial responsibility.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: No, it’s not necessarily a provincial responsibility. It’s partly federal --

Mr. Renwick: The Minister of Health (Mr. Miller) is here. Is it his officers who do it?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: It is a responsibility of the local federal-provincial manpower committee. The local medical officer of health is carrying out these inspections in the respective counties and districts.

Mr. Renwick: They are officers appointed by your colleague, the Minister of Health?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: That may very well be but who else would you suggest should be doing it?

Mr. Renwick: No, I think that --

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Isn’t that man acceptable to the member for Riverdale?

Mr. Renwick: That man may be acceptable but obviously the standard he provides is not acceptable to the federal government.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: As far as we know there have been no complaints. I have heard no complaints from members about what’s happened this year.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Andras said it in the last 10 days.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I don’t care what Andras said as of this day or last week.

Mr. Renwick: That’s what I thought. That’s exactly what I thought.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I know what is happening as far as --

Mr. Renwick: You don’t care. That’s what I said.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: -- the groups are concerned. There is no question that the conditions which existed last year are not prevailing this year because when any labour is referred by federal Manpower through these pools, the accommodation has to pass the local inspector.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, if I could turn to this question, out of ignorance: What is the wage level which is paid? I think it’s very nice of the member for Kent to want students in Belgium to have the experience of a summer spent harvesting the crops in the Province of Ontario but what is the wage scale which is paid? Are we engaged in the usual game on this question of farm labour by paying them very low wages in exchange for something called a summer holiday experience in the harvest lands of the agricultural world of the Province of Ontario?

Mr. Paterson: Mr. Chairman, if I might speak to this and possibly clear up some of the confusion?

Mr. Chairman: The member for Essex South.

Mr. Paterson: There are three areas of concern involved in migrant labour in these fruit and vegetable areas. I think the minister has been quite clear on the first policy of bringing in seasonal workers from the Caribbean.

These people are offered a minimum of six to eight weeks’ work. The minimum wage is $2 per hour; if it’s piecework they are guaranteed at least $2 an hour. I know in many instances it has been said they --

Mr. Renwick: What is the quantity of piecework required?

Mr. Paterson: Whatever they can do they can make. They make $45 a day picking tomatoes; they are guaranteed $2 per hour.

Mr. Renwick: Come off it!

An hon. member: What do you mean, “Come off it”?

Mr. Paterson: Sure they do; $60 a day.

Mr. Renwick: Come off it. They don’t make $45 or $60.

An hon. member: That much?

Mr. Paterson: They certainly do and the member doesn’t know anything about this.

Mr. Chairman: Order, order.

Mr. Renwick: What’s the net?

An hon. member: That’s it.

Mr. Paterson: That’s theirs!

Mr. Renwick: It is not.

Mr. Paterson: It’s for one person.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, this is the fallacy in which we are involved. Members who represent the farm communities recognize that the itinerant workers do not have any vote. They are apologists for the conditions which exist and they cover them up by talking about this kind of wage in the Province of Ontario. How many hours are you talking about? What is the rate per hour? What is the piecework requirement to earn that number of dollars? What is the net take-home pay per day? Don’t give us these gross figures.

Mr. Paterson: This is the Manpower agreement signed between the two levels of government.

Mr. Renwick: Yes, I understand that.

Mr. Paterson: A guarantee of $80 per week whether or not they work.

Mr. Renwick: Of course! For doing nothing they would get $80 a week.

Mr. Paterson: Adequate housing meeting municipal standards must be provided. In my area the National Building Code is the standard being provided in these instances.

Mr. Renwick: What National Building Code standards? What are you talking about?

Mr. Paterson: I am talking about the building inspectors, fire safety and all the rest of it.

Mr. Renwick: Yes. Just the way the minister here is talking about the local medical officers of health.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Renwick: It’s a lot of nonsense.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Paterson has the floor.

Mr. Renwick: This is a cover-up and you know it.

Mr. Paterson: I’m just reading the agreement that these workers signed, the government signed, the farmers signed --

Mr. Renwick: The workers are not free contractors to sign any agreement and you know it.

Mr. Paterson: They have been doing this for the past 10 years. You don’t know anything about it because this has been going on for 10 years.

Mr. Renwick: I know exactly what it is about and I don’t believe everything in the paper you are reading from.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Paterson: I guess we had better go back to it.

Transportation costs are paid from Kingston, Jamaica, both ways; paid by the farmer --

Mr. Renwick: How else do you think they get here? Do you think they are going to paddle?

Mr. Paterson: This is part of the deal and the overall cost to the individual farmers.

The standards in these buildings are adequate. I don’t think there has ever been a complaint brought to my attention.

Mr. Renwick: What does the member mean, the standards are adequate? Mr. Chairman, the standards are not adequate and you know it. The minister has just said they have had to improve them over last year because of the severe criticism which took place.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Paterson: The second area of concern, Mr. Chairman, is that workers come from Quebec and the Maritimes and there is no housing in the area for them. What are you going to do with individuals or families?

Mr. Renwick: Of course, have them sleep outside.

Mr. Paterson: This is where the problem lies.

Mr. Renwick: Have them sleep outside in the lovely summer weather in Ontario.

Mr. Paterson: The other problem is the migrant worker families from Mexico, the Mexican Mennonites. I believe this is what was referred to by Mr. Andras.

Mr. Renwick: That is right.

Mr. Paterson: This is the most confused state of migration because some of the people were born in Manitoba and moved 15 to 20 years ago either to South America or Mexico. They think they have Canadian citizenship --

Mr. Renwick: They think they are Canadian citizens? I understand; doing farm labour in Mexico? I understand. There is a lot of them.

Mr. Paterson: They are going back and forth, and they come in their trucks with eight or 10 children in the back and land in the area. Where are you going to house them? This is where there could be possible difficulties.

Mr. Renwick: There is a problem and you know it.

Mr. Paterson: From time to time --

Mr. Renwick: There is a problem.

Mr. Paterson: There isn’t under that first programme sponsored by the government.

Mr. Renwick: The only time there isn’t a problem is when there is no harvest season.

In a non-harvesting season --

An hon. member: You’d better come down and see what goes on.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Is item 2 carried?

Item 3.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Huron-Bruce on item 3. Order, please.

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to move from seasonal help to the --

Mr. Renwick: No, you can’t do that. I was hoping you would shed some light on the topic we were discussing. Are you --

Mr. Chairman: The member for Huron-Bruce.

Mr. Gaunt: I am referring to the permanent farm help situation.

Mr. Renwick: May I try to sum up my concern about the problem involved in itinerant immigrant seasonal farm labour in the Province of Ontario? The problem involved basically is the same problem we in the Province of Ontario have in recognizing a social problem at any time. I am talking about the hourly rate disguised as a piece-meal rate; disguised as a beautiful summer holiday in the Province of Ontario for citizens or students from other countries; disguised as this strange group who have emigrated from Manitoba down to South America and Mexico and now are coming back to harvest the crops in the Province of Ontario; disguised as inadequate housing conditions; disguised as the inadequate supervision of the medical officers of health for the Province of Ontario; hidden until a federal election comes along, until the Minister of Manpower and Immigration raises the controversy in which is involved, and then cloaked by this minister because he will not state what the controversy is, and then by some of my Liberal apologists on my right, not all of them, indicated in terms of --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Paterson: Just the facts.

Mr. Renwick: -- what could be better than to earn $45, $50, 60, $70, $80 a day in the vegetable lands of the Province of Ontario? That is nonsense and you know it.

Mr. Chairman: The member for York North.

Mr. Renwick: If I had the time I would spend the time down there to investigate the conditions --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Ruston: You don’t know what a tomato looks like.

Mr. Renwick: -- the way the member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Drea) did and won -- what was the name of the prize he won? You know that as well as I did.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Renwick: The Heywood Broun prize for his investigation into the area. Relatively speaking, in terms of the prosperity of the Province of Ontario, the conditions are no better today than when he won the prize. The minister knows it, Minister Andras knows it, and the other members of the assembly know it except that they will not face up to it. They think all is rosy, all is fine. But as far as we are concerned the condition of immigrant farm labourers in the Province of Ontario must not be allowed to deteriorate the way it would deteriorate if the policies of this government -- or the non-policies of this government -- continue.

Mr. Chairman: The member for York North.

Mr. W. Hodgson: Mr. Chairman, I feel I have to say something in this case. The member for Riverdale is talking about a subject he doesn’t know anything about.

Mr. Huston: Right.

Mr. W. Hodgson: I have to defend the great vegetable growers in my area.

Mr. Foulds: Why do they need defending?

Mr. W. Hodgson: They are not a bunch of cheapskates, who won’t pay a decent wage. They have had immigrant labour, seasonal labour, coming back year after year for the last 15 years, more particularly in the last three or four years.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The member for York North has the floor.

Mr. W. Hodgson: It is about time you made yourself familiar with what is going on in the farming community. I won’t sit in this House and hear you run down those people that work damned hard in the Holland Marsh from morning till night.

Mr. Renwick: Come on, it is all owned by the --

Mr. W. Hodgson: You are saying they are a bunch of cheapskates. There isn’t a cheapskate living there. They are willing to pay --

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, there is no individual farmer left in the Holland Marsh and the member knows it. It is agri-corporate agriculture in that area and you know it.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. W. Hodgson: As high as $45 a day is to be earned on piecework, not only in the Essex-Kent area, but also in the Holland Marsh area.

Mr. Renwick: They are crazy. They still believe you are living.

Mr. W. Hodgson: I would like them to hear you talk. They would think you were a man that hadn’t even been born yet -- a man from the space age.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I happen to know a little bit about the Holland Marsh. I at least know where it is and I know how it drains.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. W. Hodgson: Where is it? Tell us where it is.

Mr. Renwick: Yes, that is right. You touch a rather tender spot.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Renwick: All right. I was quite intimately involved in the Ontario Hurricane Relief Fund in Hurricane Hazel and I know that at that time the Holland Marsh was owned by a number of individual farmers. But I defy the member for York North or the Minister of Agriculture and Food to say to me today that the Holland Marsh is individually owned by persons. You know as well as I do it is an agri-corporate community and all of the farms are under lease to the corporations. They are under the domination of the corporations. The corporations require by contract the production of this amount of food, and the farmers who farm the area require cheap labour, lousy housing conditions, a poor economic situation in order to produce for the agri-corporate community. Now, don’t kid ourselves. The agri-corporate community doesn’t just exist south of the border. The member for York North knows this and he knows it very well, and he cannot stand up and deny it.

Mr. W. Hodgson: I can stand right up here in my place and deny it. In the original Holland Marsh there are about 7,000 acres and I would say 5,000 acres are owned by individual owners.

Mr. Renwick: And controlled through leases by the agri-corporate community and you know it.

Mr. W. Hodgson: No. To own the farm you have to pay for 90 per cent of it too. You don’t know what you are talking about.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Huron-Bruce.

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to talk for a moment about the year-round farm labourer situation. This is quite a tough problem, particularly among dairy farmers. Dairy farming is labour intensive and many of the dairy farmers have had to go out of business because they simply weren’t able to get good reliable help. I think almost every agricultural country in the world has run into a similar problem and I think this government is going to have to move into the area and show a greater measure of concern and involvement in this particular problem than has been apparent up until this point.

There is no question that as far as the permanent help situation on the farm is concerned, the wages are below the going rate. In comparison with many of the other industries in the province, it is well below what is being paid in those industries. For instance, in 1973 year-round farm help was paid an average of $2.12 an hour.

Mr. Stokes: Shame.

Mr. Renwick: It’s just disastrous.

Mr. Gaunt: In mining it was $4.78; in food manufacturing it was $3.47; construction $5.59; hotels, restaurants and taverns, $2.30. So when it comes down to dollars and cents for permanent help, the agricultural industry certainly cannot compete on the basis of wages.

The farmers traditionally have said that they can’t pay higher wages because they are not making that kind of money -- which is true. I feel that this government is going to have to get into the business of subsidizing farm labour, whether it be through various training programmes or whether it be through an actual day rate subsidization programme.

For instance in Denmark, I was interested to note that almost 90 per cent of the young men who go into Danish farms go in on apprentice training programmes. They are actually on-farm apprentices for a period of formal training before they go into full-time farming or full-time farm labour. During that period of apprenticeship my understanding is the government there subsidizes the actual wage of the apprentice through the Ministry of Education, and I believe the farm organizations are also involved in the programme.

I think we are going to move into that area if farmers are going to compete with other industries for the available labour. I think there are many people who would be prepared to work on farms and who would enjoy working on farms but they are not prepared to sacrifice dollars to do it. I would be interested in getting the minister’s comment.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, we are working on an on-the-job training programme with the federal government. Discussions are going on. We are not sure what the results will be. We are working on the programme. We have a continuous manpower training programme at the Kemptville Agricultural College. We hope to graduate about 100 students annually, and they will be going out to the farms as they graduate. It seems to be working reasonably well.

We have a programme of bringing immigrants from the United Kingdom. I think that has been quite a successful programme; modest in its scope, but yet very successful. Last fall we interviewed 127 applicants. Eight of them are either here now or on the way; or at least they have been placed. The average wage is around $500 a month; plus house, heat, hydro and milk, to start with. And then, as their experience increases and they get used to the job and the place, they normally have been escalated beyond that.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: How much?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: They receive $500 a month to start with, plus the amenities. This spring we have interviewed 115 over in the UK, and a number of them will be coming over right away. So that we are involved in this programme.

I would like to mention the junior agriculturalist programme that we had last year. We started out with 20 students; I believe we ended up with something like 17, if I am not mistaken. Of that number, 14 have gone back to the farms this year, many of them at very substantial wages, as full-time employees. So that programme is working. When you get 14 out of 17 going back the second year, it is not a bad programme. We now have 175 in the programme for this year.

Mr. Paterson: Mr. Chairman, might I ask a further question in this regard? I have had some correspondence with Ontario House in London concerning bringing people over for the horticultural industry. Is there any indication of the number of people who know something about the greenhouse industry, or horticultural industry, who may be expected to come into Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Clarkson tells me he interviewed approximately 50 over there. So it would appear that there is going to be some help there.

Mr. Chairman: Anything further on manpower?

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): Mr. Chairman, is this where we would discuss the beef heifer loan programme -- under the livestock section?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes, when we come to it. But I would like to wait until we get to it.

Mr. Chairman: If that finishes with manpower, the next is extension. Anything on that?

Home economics?

Livestock then. The member for Sudbury.

Mr. Germa: Under livestock, Mr. Chairman, I don’t really understand the minister’s beef heifer loan programme. It seems to me, though, that the requirement of having a $5,000 farm production figure from the previous year is discriminating against those people who are from industry and have just acquired a plot of land, and therefore have very little or no farm production quota from the previous year.

I just wondered why this requirement is so high, particularly on farms in the northern part of the province where we don’t have too many marketable crops. It is quite difficult for some people to meet the requirement of the loan programme of $5,000 per year of previous production. I think we want these people to come out of the mines, for instance. I know of several young people who have bought a piece of land and are interested in going into livestock production. They are having trouble meeting the $5,000 criterion.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: It is not $5,000.

An hon. member: It is just $3,000.

Mr. Germa: The way I understood it, Mr. Minister, it was $5,000.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: No, it isn’t.

Mr. Germa: Well, even $3,000 is hard to meet in some instances on some of the land we have up there. We haven’t got land which would grow a com crop or some cash crop, or a ready cash crop, even though that property might be good for livestock.

Can the programme not be judged on its merits, without the relationship of the previous year’s production? And secondly, I would like to ask about the government’s participation in the programme. Does the government guarantee the note? Or is a better interest rate obtained as a result of government participation?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: First of all, the requirement is $3,000 of gross annual farm income in the year previous to the application being approved. The government guarantees the loan at the bank and the farmer pays interest only the first two years and then pays interest plus 20 per cent of the principal for the next five years, so that it’s a seven-year repayment programme.

My friend mentions the fact that the person who may work in industry but who has a piece of ground may want to put some cattle on it. He feels that he should apply and that he should qualify for this type of a loan. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, $3,000 gross annual income from farming in the year previous isn’t a very extensive farm operation. I should think that when the public are guaranteeing these loans that the public should have some assurance that the person should know something about farming before we embark on that kind of a programme.

There’s nothing whatever to hinder that type of a person who wishes to get into farming, from going to the bank and borrowing on his own. We simply guarantee it’s prime plus one per cent and that’s all we guarantee, and only up to $250 per heifer. Frankly, I think the programme has worked reasonably satisfactorily and, while I can appreciate the concern expressed by my friend from the north, I don’t feel we should change the programme to accommodate that request.

Mr. Germa: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the minister is not aware that most of the miners, particularly in the area where I come from, are farm boys from the farms of Canada. They are experienced farmers and are desirous of getting out of the mine and back on the land. It’s not that they want to be gentlemen farmers and work in the mine and just run this herd of cattle. They are desirous of quitting and getting out of this mining industry, which is not compatible to their lifestyle. But they are forced into it through economic forces and they are trying to extricate themselves from this predicament.

They get a piece of land after having worked in the mine for several years and yet they can’t get a herd on to that land because of the $3,000 requirement for farm production. Certainly, they do have a little production from cutting down Christmas trees or saw logs or pulpwood to that degree.

That was one of the contentious issues, whether saw logs or a cord of pulpwood was considered farm production. I’m glad to see the regulations indicate that this is so. I think that more people would be able to go into full-time farming if this loan were made a little more accessible, taking into consideration the peculiar problems which do persist in the northern parts of the province.

Mr. Chairman: Is there anything further on the livestock item?

Mr. Riddell: On this same topic, Mr. Chairman --

Mr. Chairman: The member for Lanark.

Mr. D. J. Wiseman (Lanark): I want to follow this along a little further on the beef heifer programme. I wonder if the minister could tell us if the beef heifer programme has been successful; if many people have taken advantage of it; and if, in light of the fact that heifers are quite a bit more expensive than when the programme came into effect, he would consider raising the limit to $300 instead of the $250 that’s on there now?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, in reply, to the member for Lanark, there have been 1,243 loans made -- roughly $7.25 million have been used, and I would say at $250 per heifer, it would round out to about 29,000 heifers. I would say that it has been reasonably successful. There has been a substantial increase in the beef cow herd in Ontario. You will recall that a few years ago there were approximately 900,000 dairy cows in Ontario and about 400,000 beef cows -- something like that; I’m sorry, 300,000 beef cows in Ontario. We’ve dropped in dairy cows by about 200,000 and increased the beef cow herd in Ontario by 200,000 so we have about the same number of cows -- but we have more beef cows than we have dairy. Obviously, the 29,000 beef heifers that are included in this programme here would have contributed substantially, I think, to that increase. But when you look at the overall figure it isn’t really a very large sum.

With regard to the $300 request to increase it to that, frankly with the present outlook of beef price prospects over the next couple of years I would have some reservations about further encouraging people to plunge into beef cow herds at the moment. I think that we have reached quite a substantial number of beef cows in North America and with the apparent disenchantment with beef prices, or at least lower per capita consumption of beef, I would have some reservations about rapidly expanding into an area of enlarging the beef cow herd by increasing the grants unless it was circumstances of health or retirement or something like that where a person wants to do it. I have some reservations about it at the moment.

Mr. Wiseman: Mr. Chairman, will we continue to keep this programme over the next year or is there some thought of maybe dropping it?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes, it continues through to the end of March, 1975.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Huron.

Mr. Riddell: My question has been partially answered, Mr. Chairman; I didn’t realize that the programme was going to be curtailed in a year’s time.

I was wondering why the programme is limited to beef heifers, because in many cases a young fellow can get established in the cow-calf operation by attending dispersal sales where he could probably buy a cow with a calf at her side or a cow ready to calve in a period of a month’s time. But for some reason this programme limits it to a beef heifer. In many cases the young farmer is buying open heifers, which means that it is going to take a period of at least a year or two years before he is going to get anything back from it.

But I suppose if the programme is going to end in another year’s time that it won’t make a great deal of difference whether we did change it from simply beef heifers to cows. But why was it that it was limited strictly to beef heifers?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: A very simple answer, Mr. Chairman. It is limited to beef heifers simply to increase the total cow herd. Had it applied to cows, it simply would have been an exchange between one farmer and another of the cows, with the government guaranteeing the interest rate for a seven-year loan with interest payable only the first two years; a pretty good deal. I would buy your cows and you would buy mine and we would both qualify. Now that isn’t doing anything to increase the total beef cow herd and so if you put it on heifers, and that means either open heifers or heifers that are carrying their first calf, they qualify for the loan.

Mr. Chairman: Anything further on the livestock item? Carried?

Mr. Gaunt: No, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Huron-Bruce.

Mr. Gaunt: I wanted to mention the matter of the brucellosis eradication programme. I realize this is really a federal matter, but I am wondering if in fact the province has made any representation to the federal government with respect to the recurrence of brucellosis in some areas throughout Ontario. I recently --

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I think, Mr. Chairman, that the item might be more properly addressed under veterinary services, if he could do it under that. There is a difference and I am quite willing to discuss it or debate it with you, but I think it should be under the proper heading.

Mr. Chairman: Anything further on the livestock item then?

Soils and crops. Veterinary.

Mr. Gaunt: Well, soils and crops, just as a matter of interest, Mr. Chairman. Here again I am seeking some information with respect to the comparison of figures in regard to salaries and wages, employee benefits and transportation costs, all of which are up substantially from last year. Even services is up substantially from last year. Is there an explanation for that? I am sure there is.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes, the increase of $73,400, that’s the net increase, is due to salary awards and increased costs of transportation services and supplies. It reflects the higher costs.

Mr. Chairman: Anything further on the soils and crops then?

Veterinary services? The member for Huron.

Mr. Riddell: I am wondering, Mr. Chairman, why there isn’t some kind of financial assistance available from the government for young veterinarians who want to get established in a practice and for veterinarians who are established and wish to construct a clinic? I don’t know how many veterinarians have approached me about this very thing.

It was just recently I had a young chap from Australia who has been practising in an area in my riding for five years. He wishes to construct a clinic in which he will employ in the neighbourhood of another four or five veterinarians and three or four secretaries. He will make use of some of the animal health technicians who graduate from the Centralia College of Technology. Yet for some reason he cannot get government assistance to help build this clinic, so he is going to be forced to go to Australia to borrow the money there, then come back to build a clinic that we dearly need in our own Province of Ontario.

I think that if you were to travel around the Province of Ontario and travel in a place like Australia to compare the clinics, you would find that we are far behind the other countries. The reason, as far as I am concerned, is that the veterinarians have not been able to raise sufficient funds in order to establish these clinics, and yet I think we need them.

I have had some conversation with Ken McDermid on this subject and I am not fully convinced that, as he indicated, all or some veterinarians do not prefer to have money made available for the construction of these clinics. I feel that they are needed and I simply can’t see why funds can’t be made available. If a dentist wants to get established in an area, he approaches the Ministry of Health, they designate that area and he gets money in order to establish a clinic. If a medical doctor wants to get a clinic established, it’s the same thing. But here a veterinarian is completely out in the cold. He is not given any consideration. Many of these vets who graduate haven’t got a cent to start with. I maintain there should be funds available for them to get into their practice or to construct clinics which are certainly going to be very useful in the Ontario livestock industry. Could I have some comment on that.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes, you sure can have some comment on that one.

When you talk about the dentists and the doctors having the availability in certain areas, that only pertains in certain areas of the province. It doesn’t pertain all over Ontario. Surely my hon. friend has been around here long enough to know the veterinarian has designated veterinarian areas in the Province of Ontario, all through the north and several areas in southern Ontario as well. Now those areas are designated where our province pays the veterinarian $8,000 a year. The local veterinary committee raises a $1,000, and then it’s a fixed rate of mileage from there on and service calls for whatever he is required to do. Those areas now are in effect.

With regard to money available to build the clinics, there are some veterinarians who don’t share the concern expressed by my friend from Huron. We’ve discussed it with several veterinarians. In fact, I have had meetings with veterinarians, like my friend from Lanark, my parliamentary assistant. Several other of the private members in our caucus have met with veterinarians from various areas of the province to discuss these various things. As far as they are concerned, there is no unanimity whatever as to the usefulness of providing government sponsored veterinary clinics. There are several around the province now that have been put there by veterinarians who have gone together on a partnership, or two or three or something like that have gone together and pooled their resources and built these clinics. I understand that a new veterinary clinic has just been built on Mt. Brydges west of London. The veterinarian there borrowed the money from the bank and built the clinic himself, right there.

Mr. Riddell: No departmental assistance?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: No departmental assistance whatever.

We have discussed these things with the veterinarians and I can tell you that there isn’t that unanimity of opinion my hon. friend would lead us to believe. We have 17 areas where vet services are provided in Ontario. We provide seven cents a mile for 25 vets in those 17 areas, plus $8,000 a year. That’s on top of what they get as a fee from the farmer for providing that service. This is a subsidy.

Mr. Deans: Is that seven or 17?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Seven cents a mile on top of the fee they get, plus their $8,000. It’s simply a subsidy on top of what they are now getting.

Mr. Chairman: Anything further on veterinary services? The member for Thunder Bay.

Mr. Stokes: Yes. I had a problem, Mr. Chairman, about the unavailability of services at a reasonable price for people who live a great distance from Thunder Bay. They say they just can’t afford the services of a vet, given the rates they were charging.

I had this out with the good doctor who heads up this veterinary branch. Apparently there are only two vets in all the Thunder Bay area. They had to subsidize on their own beyond a certain radius from the city of Thunder Bay. Of course there aren’t too many farmers, as you well know, and when you do get a farmer who is 90 miles from a vet the cost to that individual farmer becomes prohibitive.

I know that you are preoccupied with areas down here where there are many more people and it’s much easier to deliver or subsidize a service. But in instances like that, where people are trying to get into beef, is there any way that you change the rules and say this is a specific instance and you will assist individual farmers, given the uniqueness of the situation and the high costs involved?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I am concerned about my hon. friend from Thunder Bay and the problems there. We’ve correspondence on this in the past, and there is no easy answer for it. There are two subsidized veterinarians in the Thunder Bay area. I believe there are at least four in private practice.

The service is there, but when one lives 90 miles from the local vet, it would have to be described as an isolated case. I don’t really know how one copes with that. I suppose it’s part of the cost of enjoying the privilege of living away from those who might cause you concern in other ways. All of us have other problems that that chap won’t have to contend with. I can’t imagine anybody complaining about the smells emanating from his livestock operation there.

But that doesn’t relieve the concern that I am sure he has and this member has when he requires veterinary service for an animal that’s ill. Now, our subsidized vets in the Thunder Bay area would have to look after that chap the same as they would anyone else. But, he would be expected to pay the increased costs required because he lives at that great distance from their centre of activity. I am afraid that doesn’t really resolve the matter my friend raises, but I really don’t know of any other way to resolve the issue; unless of course one were to say that each case could apply for a subsidy on its own.

Mr. Stokes: Couldn’t you say 10 cents a mile under those circumstances?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I don’t know. We’ll take a look at that.

Mr. Renwick: Or 30 cents a mile.

Mr. Chairman: Veterinary services carried then? Anything further on the veterinary services? Carried then.

Mr. Deans: No, no.

Mr. Chairman: Oh.

Mr. Renwick: Warble fly control programme.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s it.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves the committee rise and report.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Deans: No, it’s not carried.

Mr. Chairman: Pardon?

Mr. Laughren: Veterinary services carried?

Mr. Chairman: No, no. The rise and report has been carried.

Some hon. members: Oh.

Mr. Laughren: Oh, right.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of supply reports a certain resolution and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, before I move the adjournment of the House I have been asked to inform the House that the social development committee has determined that it will sit tomorrow afternoon at 2 o’clock. On Thursday we will deal with the list of bills as provided in the House last evening, and on Friday we will return to the consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves the adjournment of the House.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Mr. Speaker, may I ask, on a point of order, before you adjourn whether or not there is any clarification with regard to the natural resource committee’s position in terms of its sitting tomorrow or not?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, but I am not prepared to give it at this time.

Mr. Deans: You are not prepared to give it at this time? It won’t do much good on Thursday. That’s after tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker: I put the motion to adjourn to the House. Shall the motion carry?

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 10:30 o’clock, p.m.