Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

Resumption of the adjourned debate on the amendment to the motion for second reading of Bill 96, An Act respecting Farm Income Stabilization.

FARM INCOME STABILIZATION ACT (CONCLUDED)

Mr. Deputy Speaker: When we adjourned at 6 o’clock the hon. member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk had the floor.

Mr. Nixon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I’m glad to have an opportunity to continue my comments on second reading of the farm income stabilization bill, as the government calls the legislation which is before us now.

Actually, in winding up my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I simply want to reiterate two of the things I’ve already said and mention one important new aspect, at least from my point of view. It is the contention of the Liberal Party that the government has essentially reversed its position --

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If I may interrupt the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk; would those responsible for those lights turn them off, since there are no cameras. Sorry, you may continue.

Mr. Nixon: I don’t know whether that is a reflection on the importance of this speech or not, Mr. Speaker. However, I do want to say to you, sir, that it is our contention that the government has essentially reversed what I considered to be a commitment made at the last election and made in the last two Throne Speeches.

We, as Liberals, believe in a voluntary plan. We believe the plan must be contributory. I have already indicated that it is my hope that the government of Canada will contribute their share to a premium of financing such a plan when it is brought back into the Legislature, probably in legislation presented to us this fall.

I also wanted to say that for the government to feel we must only continue the federal farm stabilization programme, simply means we in this province are not accepting the responsibility that is ours under the British North America Act to deal with the needs of the farmers in this province -- just as other provinces have seen fit so to do.

The point I have not mentioned before is that I believe the bill is extremely weak in its design to have some procedure whereby the government can negotiate with the farmers themselves.

The commission or the board so constituted has been criticized by previous speakers. While there is a great deal of concern about the constitution of that board, the omission from the bill that I believe is crucial is a section that would constitute a legal entity that can bargain on behalf of the farmers.

I know that will not be an easy thing to do; but on the other hand it is by no means impossible. Harking back a few years to Bill Stewart’s incumbency, I recall the bill was brought before us to establish a general farm organization. It was supported, as I recall, on both sides but the farmers themselves were not able to reach a conclusion in that regard. So we do not have a single farm organization but at least two and certain other ancillary organizations that speak for segments of the farm community. I believe to be acceptable a bill must constitute a legal panel that is appropriately established to negotiate with the government on the basis of what costs are and what the support level should be on a year-to-year basis. This has been done in other jurisdictions. A procedure similar to that is used in the United Kingdom where they have not found the procedure has in any way removed the basic freedom of action in the agricultural community.

We have put ourselves diametrically opposed to the government’s new position in this regard. I had hoped since all three parties had supported the concept at the time of the last election campaign we could move forward in concert to the kind of programme which would be in the best interests of the agricultural community and the farmers as individuals. Instead of that, the minister in his introductory remarks said: “All they want is a bit of help.”

I consider that a patronizing approach to the responsibility that we in this Legislature must have. The farmers want more than that and they are properly demanding more than that. They want a coherent programme of income protection of the type that has been generally recognized by the Federation of Agriculture and put forward by them in their activities across this province.

It is with reluctance that I would say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the government has gone back on its commitment to the agricultural community and it has certainly left us in this party with no alternative but to oppose this bill in principle and to move forward hoping that we are going to have better legislation in the interests of the farmers before this year is out.

Mr. Wiseman: I am pleased to speak on this bill and to say that I am in favour of Bill 96. I believe in starting out I should say that the majority of the farmers, when they get a chance to study this bill, will support it as well.

Mr. Roy: Are you suggesting they don’t understand it?

Mr. Wiseman: But right here I would just like to say that I spoke to many of the farmers already in my riding and I think a good percentage of them, when they get a chance to understand it, will support it as well.

Mr. Roy: That’s patronizing. You say they don’t understand it.

Mr. Wiseman: This programme, as the previous speakers have said, guarantees 90 per cent over the last five-year average for any of their commodities. My concern was that it took in some costs for labour and some of the other costs, and I understand that it does.

An hon. member: That’s 90 per cent of what?

Mr. Eaton: Why don’t you read it? You will find out.

Mr. Wiseman: We heard this afternoon from many of the hon. members, and I listened quite carefully, that this bill wasn’t rich enough. I would say in talking to a lot of the farmers, and I think I have an ear and I listen to them, they don’t want a Cadillac programme.

Mr. S. Smith: This is a kiddy car.

Mr. Wiseman: They want something that we can afford and something that won’t be an incentive to get people with a little bit of money to invest in the farm area to get into the programme. We have seen this happen in milk and other areas. Where the price got up to a certain level, then we saw other people get in. This is what we are faced with right now.

I think also that the farmer wants some protection to know that if he or she enters into the agricultural field, in whichever commodity he or she wants to, he or she won’t lose his or her shirt. I think this bill does that.

Any of us who sat in the House a year ago knows that many of the same comments that were made about this bill this afternoon were made about the cow-calf bill. I would say many of the farmers in eastern Ontario whom I have spoken to were quite happy with that bill, even though a lot of the members opposite voiced their opinion a year ago that it wasn’t rich enough. Many of the people in their ridings felt that it was. In my riding in particular, 90 per cent of the cow-calf people entered into that programme and already this year there are people who didn’t enter into it who are coming around and asking, “When are the forms coming out so that we can get into it this year?”

Mr. Nixon: You can make those same annual payments before the next election.

Mr. Wiseman: Some of the members used the example of British Columbia and their programme; I happened to be out there within the last couple of months, talking to many of my fellow Charolais breeders as well as other farmers. Just last week I spoke to a man who had farmed out there all his life who was visiting this area. I asked him about the programme, and he said he was afraid, as others were, that the programme was too rich and that it was an incentive for people to get into it. He also felt the government were going to be faced with some large expenditures that they might find difficult to raise, and that they were going to have to put on more rigid controls if they kept on the route they were following.

The Federation of Agriculture has said, as my friend from Middlesex said this afternoon, that they’d like to be the chief bargaining agent, as they are in British Columbia. During the last election, one or two of the hon. members of the NDP were in my riding when the chap came down from British Columbia and spoke on their programme.

Mr. Renwick: Dave Stupich?

Mr. Wiseman: Yes. He mentioned that in order to get into the programme out there, you had to belong to the Federation of Agriculture; but, in checking it over, it is easier to have one group like that look after it out there because, as I understand it, they have only a handful of farmer unions in pockets throughout the province. Here in Ontario, as most of us who are in farming know, we have three farm groups that are quite large, the Federation of Agriculture being the largest. I feel that when you’re a taxpayer in this province, you shouldn’t have to belong to any one of those organizations to get into a government-run programme; you should be able to get into that programme without having to join one of the particular groups first. I wouldn’t want to see this in the same form in Ontario.

Mr. Renwick: I think we have a little bit of trouble with the Liberal sub-amendment on that.

Mr. Wiseman: I could go on much longer, but I’d be going over a lot of the comments that were made earlier this afternoon by my colleagues, and perhaps by some members on the other side. I will just close by saying that I support Bill 96; I think the farmers of Ontario, when they get a chance to study it, will support it as well. I think it will be a programme as well accepted as our cow-calf programme is with our cow-calf people.

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this totally inadequate Conservative bill dealing with farm income stabilization. It’s pathetically inadequate to meet the needs of the farmers of Ontario or to ensure a continuation of food lands in Ontario and, consequently, food supply at reasonable prices to the consumers of Ontario.

The good people of my riding of Windsor-Sandwich are greatly interested in the present and future supply of food and the price of food, particularly as it will affect not only themselves but their children and their children’s children. They are concerned first and foremost that farm land should remain in production and understand fully that for farmers to remain in production and on the farm, their incomes must be protected and they must receive an adequate return on their investment.

This government bill covers only a few commodities -- and covers those inadequately; the 90 per cent over five years -- and is opposed as worse than useless, and not worth the paper on which it is written, by the major farm representatives in this province.

[8:15]

By opposing this bill, we are not proposing to leave the farmers without a plan. Our reasoned amendment, as introduced by the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald), would refer the bill back to the government for introduction in the future, with changes that would make the bill adequate to the needs of our society -- changes wherein it would become a farm income insurance plan, contributed to by the farmers in Ontario; a participation which they desire. It would be voluntary for all those farmers and cover all farm products.

We would anticipate the period of time for consultation as provided in our amendment would be reasonably short, that is we could see this bill in its changed form, if our reasoned amendment passes, returning to this House in the late fall, or early winter at the latest, with retroactivity embodied therein.

This we feel is the sane, responsible, rational approach, helpful to both the farmers in Ontario in the immediate future and certainly over the long term to the consumers. We cannot, therefore, in principle, support this government bill when such logical, rational alternatives exist to this very pressing problem.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, in debating this bill briefly, I have always felt that farming needed some form of security. It is interesting when you plant a crop of soya beans, tomatoes or whatever the case might be, and at the time you are putting them in, or maybe at the time you have just finished harvesting your crop, you may have received so much per bushel; but when you plant a new crop you’re never sure what you are going to get.

After all, many of our commodities are based pretty well on world markets. Since Canada has been known as a trading nation throughout the past 100 years, we seem to have to compete a great deal with other world countries. Really, the price of soya beans or the price of corn can be dependent very much on maybe how many fish they catch off Portugal or how many soya beans they grow in Brazil.

So it seems logical that we should have some form of protection -- whether you call it stabilization, income protection or crop protection; everyone can use different terms -- insurance. I suppose the thing that I reject most about this bill is that it is not a contributory bill. I think farmers should not be running to the government with hat in hand and kneeling before the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. W. Newman) and the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) and saying: “Please sir, they had a good crop of soya beans in Brazil last year and we need some money.” Damn it, that’s not the way the farmers should be operating and that’s not the way they want to operate.

Interjections.

Mr. Ruston: They are willing, I’m sure, to contribute, If they want to join the plan, then they are willing to contribute something to it. I was just talking to my nephew across the road on Sunday, he said his beans averaged $6.70 a bushel three years ago, last year they averaged $5.80 a bushel and this year the average is $4.85 a bushel. They went down about a dollar a bushel in the last three years, instead of going up. He tries to sell them on an every-couple-of-months basis, but he missed out a little bit on the market; although the other day he sold them at pretty well $6 a bushel, ones he sold previous to that went for $4.35 a bushel. His average price, for last year’s crop, for what he has sold to now, comes to $4.85 a bushel.

The stabilization plan the federal government has, I realize, is I suppose the best they can come up with. It’s Canada-wide, it’s not contributory. Their base price for soya beans is $4.45 a bushel for the 1975 crop year, and $2.11 a bushel for corn. In Essex and Kent counties, I am sure there is no one who can probably produce soya beans at less than $5 a bushel, at the price of things today. I am sure that it might even be higher, but I would put that at a very minimum to come out even.

I don’t know what the average price will be for the 1975 crop, if it was based on the monthly selling price. I am just speaking of one person who averaged his out at $4.85 a bushel.

He is not eligible, of course, for anything under the federal stabilization plan. But since he is a young chap and looking forward to farming for the rest of his life, he would probably be interested in participating in some form of plan where he could contribute something to it in the good years and then get something out of it in the lean years.

I suppose it is similar -- and yet I don’t suppose that some farmers would take it that way -- to unemployment insurance. You contribute something to it, and if you can’t find a job they pay you. If you didn’t contribute anything to it, I suppose they could find ways and means of saying, “Well, you don’t deserve anything now.”

Basically, of course, the fair price the farmer receives should come out of the marketplace. I have always felt that there was not necessarily a shortage of food, but there was a shortage of distribution facilities. I think we are capable of producing a surplus of food in normal years. However, we must always be prepared at some time or other to run across what we call pretty lean years. Or, heaven help us, we never want to again have the drought years of the 1930s -- but that can happen. So, we do need an ample food supply on hand, and sometimes we don’t have that now -- especially some of the European and Asian countries. Some of those countries can’t produce enough to feed themselves, and yet in a lot of areas they have much better land than we do. Russia had what was known as the breadbasket of Europe and Asia from 1913 to 1915, but they lost the incentive to produce, so they don’t produce very much anymore.

I think the main thing for a proper income protection plan is that it must be contributory. I think the farmers must participate in it and they must be able to negotiate a price. I think that that’s very important. The cost of production, as it rises, must be included in the prices they receive.

When the government brings in a bill that is completely different from what it talked about in the last provincial election campaign, it just makes I you wonder what they are thinking about. Maybe there is something behind this of which we are not aware. They may be trying to precipitate an election -- to bring one on. Maybe that might be what they are trying for. The Premier (Mr. Davis) was in Kemptville the other day -- the day after I was there -- and he said they are all ready for an election.

Mr. Ferrier: Why don’t you go along with us so we can have the election?

Mr. Ruston: But that isn’t necessarily what I hear from the Conservatives in my area.

Mr. Nixon: He is following you around trying to recoup his losses.

Mr. Ruston: We are looking forward, of course, to going back again and seeing what we can do to increase our members in eastern Ontario.

In speaking on this bill, our critic, the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell), has put very well -- along with others -- that we feel very strongly that the farmers must participate in it in order that they don’t have to be coming down here to Queen’s Park with hat in hand and bowing before the Minister of Agriculture and Food and asking him for assistance.

Mr. Villeneuve: Mr. Speaker, in rising to support Bill 96, I do so because I believe --

Mr. Mancini: Your first mistake in 30 years.

Mr. Villeneuve: -- any approach we can make toward stabilizing farm produce is going to be most helpful.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: You can learn a lot from him, I tell you.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: You won’t be around here for 30 years, so don’t worry about it.

Mr. Villeneuve: I happened to be in the federal House when the legislation was first enacted in 1957 and 1958, and at that time the opposition was critical but, all in all, it has served reasonably well though possibly not to the extent that some of us would want.

We realize the farmer has to get a fair return for his labour and, in particular, his very great investment. Thirty years ago a good dairy farmer in my area could buy the necessary machinery he needed to operate for less than $5,000. Today it’s only a reasonable down payment on a tractor and therefore, irrespective of prices having improved, his cost of production has got him still in a squeeze. I do say we’ve got to approach this very carefully.

I think perhaps we have had a lesson taught to us in industrial milk production. I believe Mr. Whelan tried his utmost to be very helpful to the dairy farmers of Canada. But when there is an incentive and a good price return, naturally people have a tendency to overproduce. On top of that, in our area of eastern Ontario we have been adversely affected right at the present time because 80 per cent of our milk producers do not enjoy a fluid milk market. We are industrial milk producers and when you turn off the tap when the cattle are ready to milk at the highest production, you’ve got to produce that surplus for $1 a cwt loss under the present legislation and system.

You can understand why there was a demonstration a few weeks ago by the Quebec farmers in Ottawa because a good many of them have bought cattle at a high price. Today they’ve got no quotas, no place for an outlet for that milk, therefore, they are stuck with bills to pay which they cannot meet. I had a young farmer come to me three weeks ago who had borrowed $125,000 with the best of intentions to produce a ton of milk a day. His quota is set this year at 600 pounds. The farm loan he’s got is for 30 years and $989 a month. Nobody did him any favour in allowing him to get into that position but, unfortunately, he’s there today and has a wife and two children.

Unfortunately, we have priced ourselves out of the American market in selling cattle. Milk is cheaper there. We’ve got to be realistic. I’m not saying the producer is getting too much money -- by no means. On the other hand, you’ve got to have the product within the reach of the people to buy and we have to be realistic and think in terms of the producer as well. I realize that.

Mr. Ferrier: That’s why you should vote against the bill.

Mr. Villeneuve: No, that’s not the solution to it and it is not an easy solution. I am pleased that the minister has offered this opportunity for all farm organizations to have an input into this legislation because I want open-minded discussion. Anything that will improve the bill or be helpful and that will benefit the farmer is what I want done. On the other hand, if you make too great an incentive, you’re going to be in the position we are in as industrial milk producers.

[8:30]

The federal government, and our own government here in Ontario, encouraged farmers to increase production and gave them incentives by offering them loans partly free of interest. The result is many of them have indebted themselves and naturally have to have more income in order to meet those obligations they find themselves with. They are in a period of overproduction, they have no quota and they cannot sell. Therefore, this is a very complicated matter. It is not as easily resolved as some may think. Money may be helpful at the moment, but it is not the long-term solution.

Mr. Wildman: Your bill doesn’t do it.

Mr. Villeneuve: I am in favour of any approach that in any way will benefit the producers in Ontario, whether they are vegetable growers, fruit growers or what have you, because we have no control against dumping. Therefore, I say it’s a good piece of legislation. Certainly it can be improved as time goes on, but it’s a step in the right direction. I do not maintain it is the cure for all the ills in agriculture, but certainly it is a forward movement. I honestly think people should reconsider their positions and support the bill, and leave it to the future to make the necessary amendments that will be profitable to the farmers of the province.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Timiskaming.

Mr. Makarchuk: Remind them there’s farming in northern Ontario.

Mr. Evans: This will be great.

Mr. Bounsall: Should be. It’s a farm riding.

Mr. Bain: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great sense of pride that I rise this evening to take part in the debate on Bill 96. There have been few bills that have been introduced into this Parliament that are of greater significance, not only to the farm community but to all the people of this province.

I feel the record of the Minister of Agriculture and Food has been particularly abysmal -- not necessarily him personally, but his ministry in general. Young farmers were encouraged to get into the business through special loans. There was the IMPIP programme, which encouraged farmers to get into the business; now we have quotas being reduced and these farmers are in dire need of assistance. And what do we get? Patchwork, a piecemeal approach. Basically, the minister is telling them to hold out for a few months; maybe in a few months there will be something for them.

Earlier, we heard this minister blaming the federal government for the milk quotas --

Hon. W. Newman: We accepted our responsibility --

Mr. Bain: Why doesn’t he do something positive to encourage the farmer to produce the milk and start distributing it in the schools again for children?

Hon. W. Newman: Why doesn’t the hon. member find out what is going on before he talks about it?

Mr. Makarchuk: Stop spending the money on advertising and give them the milk.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Give us your socialist all-purpose solution.

Mr. Wildman: It’s his riding, John.

Mr. Bain: The problems of farmers are very serious in this province. The need for honest straightforward farm income stabilization or farm income insurance is very great.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Talk to the farmers from Timmins. You know nothing about farming. You know nothing.

Mr. Bain: We’ll listen to the member for Sault Ste. Marie talk about the bill in a few minutes if he will be indulgent.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Oh, go away and play your games.

Mr. Bain: Is that the extent of the hon. member’s constructive contribution?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: That’s the extent of my interest in what you have to say.

Mr. Bain: Then he is not concerned about the farmers in this province.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I’m more concerned than you are.

Mr. Ferrier: Go down to the bar and have a drink of milk.

Mr. Bain: As I was saying before I was interrupted by the member for Sault Ste. Marie, who is obviously not concerned about farm problems, the farm community felt that they were going to get an honest farm income stabilization programme. The government led them along to believe that. As in so many other cases where there is a very serious need, the minister mouthed the right words; but, when he finally brought forth the bill, it was a betrayal to those very words which he mouthed. Farm income stabilization or farm income insurance is needed by the farm community in this province. It’s needed by the individual farmer and his family and, most important, it’s needed by all the people in this province.

We have had a submission by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture this year which indicates that by the year 1985 Ontario is going to be facing food shortages. When you consider that in the year 1961-1962 in beef, pork, poultry, eggs, dairy products and vegetables we were self-sufficient and almost self-sufficient in potatoes and wheat flour, then consider that in 1985 we will be deficient in beef, where only 57 per cent of our needs will be satisfied, deficient in pork and poultry, deficient in dairy products, where only 58 per cent of our needs will be satisfied deficient in fruit, deficient in potatoes and deficient in wheat flour. Why? Because the farmers are going out of production because you’re allowing farm land to be paved over in parking lots and concrete, that’s the reason why.

Interjections.

Mr. Bain: And 1985 is only nine years from now. What is the government going to do to keep the farmer on the land and to encourage him to produce the feed that we need now and will need much more desperately in a few years?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: You’ll be the first to starve.

Mr. Bain: Are you going to tell us that we will let the natural market cycle, the free market, the free enterprise system --

Mr. Warner: There is nothing free about it.

Mr. Bain: -- create food shortages, and then in a few years what few farmers do remain on the farm will get a high income, that’s if there are many farmers left and if many of us can afford to buy the food.

Hon. W. Newman: You don’t have any confidence in agriculture.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. minister will have his opportunity later on.

Interjections.

Mr. Bain: We hear a great deal about farm land going out of production. I would say the government is going to ensure that the land does not go out of production if it provides the farmer with at least an income. There’s no farmer in this province who wants to see his farm become a subdivision. Farmers have a commitment to the land. The only reason they sell their farm to a developer is that they’ve spent their whole life scrimping and saving, putting everything into the farm, and that’s the only retirement fund they have. The only time a farmer gets a decent income in this province is when he sells his farm.

Hon. W. Newman: You wouldn’t know. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Warner: You should be, about this whole bill.

Mr. Bain: It’s not surprising, when we see the real need for a farm income insurance programme, that this government has in the past supported the concept of that kind of a programme. In the Throne Speech delivered by the Lieutenant Governor this March, this was said:

“The long-term security of Ontario depends in great measure on the protection of our agricultural production. To this end, in support of an overall effort to achieve a national plan for the farming community, provincial legislation will be introduced to establish a voluntary farm income stabilization plan.”

There is no indication in that speech that it would be the kind of poor plan the government introduced.

The idea that it would be a comprehensive farm income insurance programme was again supported when the Minister of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs tabled his strategy for Ontario farm land. In this case, on page 11, the government got a little more specific. It spoke of:

“A provincial commodity income stabilization programme providing farmers with a contributory income assurance plan covering major commodities.”

What happened to that commitment?

Mr. Wildman: Answer that!

Mr. Bain: Then the minister gave his famous. or shall we say infamous, Ontario Federation of Agriculture speech on Nov. 25, in which he said:

“Our proposal envisages a minimum 90 per cent guarantee to all producers.”

It’s his speech he has underlined all producers. What happened to the commitment?

Mr. Makarchuk: Tell us now.

Hon. W. Newman: I will tell you tonight.

Mr. Bain: The minister’s own leader, the Premier, said in his interview in Farm and Country:

“This province can produce far more than at present. The greatest hang-up is that the farmer must feel there is a fair return for his work and investment.”

Surely the minister is not going to tell me Bill 96 will ensure a fair return to the farmer for his work and investment?

Mr. MacDonald: Nothing for his investment.

Mr. Mackenzie: Don’t you wish you kept quiet once in a while, Bill?

Hon. W. Newman: The member will put us all out of business.

Mr. Bain: What happens to the farmer? As we discuss this very bill tonight his costs continue to rise, continue to escalate. For example, in the last five years, and this is from Statistics Canada, the price of fertilizer has risen 250 per cent; the price of Hydro has gone up almost monthly for the farmer. What conceivable, what comparable increase has he received for the products he produces?

He hasn’t, and that’s the problem. The price the farmer pays for what he needs continues to increase yet his own income continues to decline relative to the prices he has to pay. Of the dollar the consumer pays for food, only 10 cents gets to the farmer.

Mr. Warner: The rest of it goes to Weston’s.

Mr. Bain: Not only should the government provide an honest income stabilization programme for the farmer, why doesn’t the government deal with the large corporations, many of them multinational, that control the food industry? Why doesn’t the government tackle Weston’s?

Mr. Warner: See what you can do to them.

Mr. Bain: See what you can do to them. One of the Weston companies, of course, is Loblaw’s, with its little jingle, “By gosh, the price is right.” It sure is true for them, but it is not true for the farmer.

Let us get back to the real foundation of the food industry, the farmer, and let’s make sure that the farmer gets a little hit more than 10 cents of every dollar that is spent by the consumer on food in this province.

Hon. W. Newman: Why don’t you talk with your agricultural critic? He didn’t say that this afternoon.

Mr. Bain: Yes, he did.

Hon. W. Newman: Donald, did you say that this afternoon?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Help your friend, Donald, he is in trouble.

Mr. MacDonald: He is not in trouble, you are in trouble.

Mr. Bain: I see the member for Lambton has returned to the House.

Mr. MacDonald: The only reason the member for Lambton hasn’t fallen down the hole is that there isn’t a big enough hole.

Mr. Bain: I sat here earlier today and listened to the minister say that there were no members on this side of the House, in the official opposition, who have agriculture in their ridings. I’ve got news for you, Timiskaming has one of the largest agricultural communities in this province, let alone northern Ontario.

Interjections.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Timiskaming has the floor. Give him the courtesy of being heard.

Mr. Bain: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If we look at Bill 96 we see it will only cover a very few commodities -- 12 to 15 per cent of our agricultural industry, such commodities as potatoes, fruit, vegetables and maple products.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can still hear the member for Lambton down there; will you keep your noise down?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Sorry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Bain: To add insult to injury, this programme would only take the average price over the last five years and give the farmer 90 per cent of that. How many people in this province are asked to accept 90 per cent of an average of their wages over the last five years; how many?

Mr. Bounsall: Not many.

Mr. Bain: Not very many that I know of. Yet the government offers this kind of a programme, that will cover such few commodities. They say it’s a mirror of the federal programme; well the federal programme has been grossly inadequate and has very few payouts. The government is simply compounding the problem by introducing this kind of a bill in this House.

Farm income insurance is sufficiently important that we need to have a real programme that takes into consideration a farmer’s investment in terms of dollars and cents, his management investment, his labour investment as well, and gives him a fair return. Perhaps the government could use as its model, although it has many shortcomings for this kind of a bill, could use as a model its cow-calf stabilization programme. I would respectfully submit that programme in fact is far more successful than the government thought it would be and I wouldn’t be surprised at all if the ministry attempted to keep the basic price at 50 cents instead of increasing it in an attempt to detract even from that programme.

[8:45]

A farm income stabilization programme should involve the farmers in its running through negotiations to set the base price and to set the premiums they would contribute to it. It should have a premium; the farmer would pay a third of the cost through premiums; this government could pay two-thirds of that cost and, hopefully, the federal government will participate and when they do, they would pay a third.

So a third of the cost of that kind of an income stabilization programme for the farmers would come from premiums paid by the farmers, a third from the provincial government and a third from the federal government. It would provide a base price for all the commodities, regardless of whether they’re under marketing boards or not, and this base price would be determined through negotiations with the various farm groups. If the government needed to set up some sort of a negotiating entity that included the various farm groups, it could do that.

It’s important to include commodities that are already under marketing boards in an income insurance programme for farmers. We’ve seen most recently the milk producers in difficulty and perhaps a farm income insurance programme would alleviate some of this difficulty.

In conclusion I would like to leave the minister with these thoughts.

Mr. Warner: Resign.

Mr. Bain: The farm income insurance programme is too important to be sidestepped even for a moment with Bill 96. Bill 96 does not meet the real needs of the farm community. The minister is not living up to his earlier commitment to provide a farm income insurance programme for all commodities. He should do that. The farm community in this province is the basis of our prosperity in the sense that the basic production of food is the cornerstone of any society. If the minister doesn’t realize that, if he doesn’t take steps to ensure that there will remain a strong, healthy, viable farm community in this province, he is doing a disservice not only to the farm community but to all the people of this province.

It is essential that we have a farm income stabilization programme to avoid food shortages that are looming on the horizon. It is essential that we have a farm income insurance programme not only to provide a decent income for farmers already in the business but to attract new farmers. It’s essential that we have a farm income insurance programme to provide a sound economic footing upon which to build a viable, prosperous farm economy in this province. Failure to do that will be to deny the legitimate needs of the farm community in this province.

Mr. Spence: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to take part in this debate on Bill 96, the Farm Income Stabilization Act. I must state to the minister with due respect I was very disappointed when I first read this bill. I was hoping the minister would make this bill a contributory bill. I know he knows the farmers of this province are a very independent group. The farmers of this province would like this bill to be contributory. They don’t like to be living on subsidies. They’d like to be able to contribute to a farm income stabilization programme.

Over the last number of years the agricultural industry has gone through many difficult periods. This bill is a step in the right direction, but it hasn’t gone as far as we on this side of the House would like it to. I must say to the minister the farmers of this province would like more commodities covered under this stabilization bill, so that the farmers could have an income that is satisfactory to keep the operation a viable industry.

Many people have fallen into the habit of calling Bill 96 the farm income stabilization bill, but you will notice that the government has very carefully used the title, An Act respecting Farm Income Stabilization. It is a name which surely covers a multitude of sins, or perhaps I should say a multitude of shortcomings.

If this is typical of the kind of legislation that we can expect from this government, no doubt we shall some time be asked to consider a bill recommending that people should stop smoking cigarettes for the sake of their health, masquerading as an Act respecting air pollution in this province.

This bill is little more than a phoney public relations exercise. In no respect can it be considered an honest and sincere attempt to establish a genuine and effective farm income stabilization programme as legislation. It is totally inadequate and as a gesture to the farmers of the province it is an insult to their intelligence.

More than a year ago, the government in the Throne Speech premised that measures would be introduced to provide Ontario farmers with a reasonable assurance of a profitable, continuing operation of their vital enterprise. What kind of assurance is given in this bill, which provides only a measure of income protection for farmers producing something like 15 per cent of the dollar value of Ontario’s farm products?

How can farmers continue to operate a profitable enterprise when their costs continue to increase at a pace far outreaching farm gate prices?

Ontario farm capital today is approximately 50 per cent greater than it was 15 years ago. With the reduction in the actual number of farms, the investment per farm is something like 95 per cent greater. Yet, the Minister of Agriculture and Food estimates that the average net income for Ontario farms in 1975 was $9,200. Would any businessman consider $9,200 an adequate return for an investment of similar magnitude?

Since the beginning of time, farming has been an endeavour in which man’s effort has contributed to only a limited extent to its ultimate success or failure. Farmers may have all the knowledge in the world. They may work from dawn to dusk -- and usually do. They may have the best soil, the finest equipment, the highest quality stock, seed and fertilizers. But there are still the imponderables, such as the temperature, rainfall, the possibility of crop failures or livestock losses, of falling market prices, or a glut of food in the marketplace. Against these things, they have always had little or no protection whatsoever. Farmers who fail frequently do so because of circumstances entirely beyond their control. That is why some form of income stabilization is necessary. That is why some form of income stabilization is long overdue.

This bill which we are discussing looks like the beginning of an election in this province. Perhaps there is a degree of poetic justice in this. In fact, this should be so. Over the years, voting patterns in Ontario have changed almost beyond recognition. At one time farmers and agricultural communities in the province were a dominant economic factor, wielding considerable influence in this Legislature. With the advance of technology, and the enormous growth of the urban centres, the pendulum of voting power has changed and swung the other way.

Times have indeed changed, but the problems and needs of the farmer remain very much the same. All the newspapers give a great deal of coverage to problems of our urban centres. I don’t feel that these economic difficulties under which our farmers and agriculturists work are given the attention they deserve. Obviously the needs of the city dweller and our industrial workers must be taken into account; but robbing Peter to pay Paul was never a good idea in the past. Neglecting the needs of the farmers will in no way benefit the town dwellers; quite the reverse, because whatever else may have changed in this modern age, everyone has the need to eat.

Agriculture in this province represents an enormous investment, providing the basis of a very diversified, connected industry. The economic well-being of rural Ontario has been vital to the balance, and doubtless will always be vital, although it would seem that the present government of Ontario would like to push this fact around until they lose it.

Food prices have become a matter of real concern to many people. It is obvious that the food and agriculture industry is reaching a point of crisis. Clearly it is time that all levels of government make a sincere effort to bring this situation under control. We had all attached considerable importance to the government promise of an effective farm income stabilization programme. I believe I speak for the majority of my fellow farmers when I say that Bill 96 is a bitter disappointment, a very bitter disappointment indeed.

The Minister of Agriculture and Food has chosen to disagree with statistics which show that the farm land of Ontario is going out of production at a rate which is almost frightening. As a private individual, if he chooses to act like the ostrich and bury his head in the sand that’s his own business. However, as the Minister of Agriculture and Food in this province, if he chooses to ignore the facts that’s the business of every farmer in Ontario who realizes the seriousness of this situation.

Many of our older farmers are retiring and going out of active farming. Younger men who might have taken over from these veterans are discouraged when they look at the price of operating a farm -- the cost of the necessary machinery, the long hours, the frequent small net returns. Consequently, more and more of our productive farm land will lie idle unless answers are found to the difficulties of the agriculture industry in this province. The food prices will then go even higher, there will be a very real possibility of an actual food shortage in the future.

An effective farm income stabilization bill would have done much to improve the near crisis situation which has been developing for some time. It has been estimated that such a programme would have cost something in the region of $100 million. The government’s proposed legislation has been estimated to involve something like $7 million or $8 million.

The bill doesn’t come anywhere near meeting the needs of our farmers. In fact it is difficult to believe that even the government itself would have us accept that it is intended to do so. The bill does not even fulfil the commitments made by the Minister of Agriculture and Food at various meetings around this province.

[9:00]

I understand this bill is considered by the government to be an important first step -- but certainly not toward a degree of financial security for farmers. As at present drafted, Bill 96 is little more than token legislation. We all know this. It will never cover all the commodities already provided by the federal plan or the commodities which have quotas and prices set by marketing boards in this province.

The bill is totally inadequate and makes no attempt to come to grips with the difficulties which our farmers are experiencing. As a member of the Liberal Party in this Legislature, I shall vote against it in the hope that its defeat will impress upon the government the vital importance of bringing in a farm income stabilization bill that will meet the needs of the agriculture industry in the Province of Ontario. As a farmer speaking on behalf of many farmers in this province, I would like to say to the Minister of Agriculture and Food the best thing he can do with Bill 96 is paper his office walls with it as a constant warning that the farmers of this province cannot be fooled by phoney legislation.

An hon. member: That’s mild. He’s being kind to the minister.

Mr. Warner: Paper the walls and then resign.

Mr. Spence: We’re not asking for charity, we’re asking for justice. We’re not interested in empty promises, we want action. The minister will ignore us at his peril now because we have a long memory and we shall remember this day when the next election comes along.

Mr. Johnson: I would like to speak on behalf of Bill 96 and urge its adoption before this House. We’ve witnessed in the past few days and in the past few hours considerable political manoeuvring on behalf of the opposition parties and especially by some of my good friends on the Liberal benches.

Mr. Warner: I’m not surprised at that.

Mr. Johnson: I’ve studied the provisions of the Farm Income Stabilization Act and I find on the whole that the legislation is highly useful and workable. It is an effective answer to the needs of Ontario producers in specified commodities.

Interjections.

Mr. Johnson: Certainly by no means all farmers need it, because all farmers do not want the state telling them when to punch a time clock, when to have breakfast and when to go to bed. My friends opposite in the NDP are already displeased.

Mr. Warner: Why don’t you get serious?

Mr. Johnson: The NDP simply does not want the truth out. The basic truth is that the NDP farming policy aims at bringing a promised paradise to Ontario’s farmers by first introducing a comprehensive land freeze in classes 1, 2 and 3 --

Mr. Davidson: Speak to the bill.

Mr. Johnson: -- in order to maintain full production at levels to meet Ontario’s growing population.

Mr. Eaton: They say the one goes with the other.

Mr. Davidson: Speak to the bill.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order, please. The member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel has the floor.

Mr. Johnson: The NDP farm critic has said so --

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Is land not a public resource anymore?

Mr. Johnson: -- many times in various communities across Ontario. On the other hand, his leader in projecting the new moderate image suggests that other state means must be tried before resorting to a land freeze policy.

Mr. Wildman: Are you talking about land use or farm income stabilization?

Mr. Johnson: I would like to quote from the Globe and Mail.

Mr. Davidson: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Yes, point of order.

Mr. Davidson: He is not speaking to the bill, he is speaking to a land use policy and that is not what Bill 96 is about.

Interjections.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Yes, I think that the member was straying a little bit from the principle of the bill. I would ask him to speak to the farm income stabilization principle in this bill.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: He is speaking to the principle of the bill.

Mr. Johnson: I’m sorry. It was my impression that I heard some of the members in the opposition speaking on land use.

Mr. Eaton: You certainly did.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: They wouldn’t know the difference.

Mr. Acting Speaker: However, some of them were a little bit out of order and I hope that you would speak more to the principle of stabilization.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I noticed tonight during the debate that both parties on the other side of the House spoke on land use at some length and I have notes to prove it. I will be talking about it myself and I hope you will not rule out the hon. member from talking about that, because they have done just that tonight.

Mr. Acting Speaker: I would hope that the member will speak more to the principle of the bill. If he can work that into his presentation that would be --

Hon. Mr. Henderson: He is speaking to the principle of the bill.

Mr. Acting Speaker: We will permit the member to continue and, if he can work this into his presentation, we will accept it.

Mr. Makarchuk: You are using up valuable time.

Mr. Bullbrook: I think the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) is better.

Mr. Johnson: When I talk to any farmers in my riding, they seem uncertain about the NDP’s farm programme, but mention land freeze and they immediately become very certain about such an absurd proposal. They want no part or parcel of any such hare-brained scheme, and rightly so. Farmers have worked long hours all their lives to gain what they now possess. They reject outright any abstract NDP interpretation of the public interest, as simply a handy way of interfering more and more in their lives.

They want to be left alone as much as possible. A land freeze does not provide them with that choice or that freedom. Farmers still value their independence; society must respect that value. Let the public record show conclusively what happens when any NDP government starts an across-the-board freeze on good farm land. The producers become angry and hostile. Just look at British Columbia’s Land Commission when a general freeze was instituted.

Against this background, this government has introduced in an orderly fashion a farm income stabilization bill which makes certain that the horse is in front of the cart rather than in the reverse manner, as is so fashionable for the NDP.

Mr. Wildman: Did you write this?

Mr. Johnson: Let’s examine NDP criticisms of this bill. NDP members argued that the legislation is insufficient in the amount of money to be laid out. My question is, what would be sufficient to satisfy our friends opposite?

Mr. Bain: A complete farm income stabilization programme.

Mr. Makarchuk: The same amount that General Motors gets.

Mr. Johnson: I gather by the conflicting answers that the sky is the limit. Subsidize each and every commodity so that the producers’ production, labour, investment and management costs are adequately covered.

Mr. Wildman: Not subsidization.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Johnson: The key word here is “adequate” and its interpretation. To the NDP the most adequate coverage would be the Rolls-Royce type of farm income. Remove all the risks from farming and guarantee absolutely the farmers’ income.

Mr. Makarchuk: Why not?

Mr. Johnson: It amounts to a guaranteed farm income for all producers at the expense of the Ontario taxpayers --

Mr. Bain: Even you can’t spit it out. It is hard enough for you to swallow.

Mr. Johnson: -- and discrimination against the small businessman, a figure whom the NDP have suddenly discovered and have started to revere.

Mr. Wildman: This is very close to the principle of the bill.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Johnson: How about a guaranteed income for the small businessman? Will a guaranteed income for the farmers take their initiative away? Will the aggressive productive farmer be penalized to subsidize his less ambitious neighbour? And what about costs to the farmer? How much effect has labour strife and the increased cost associated with these strikes to do with the farmer’s increased costs?

Mr. Warner: What about the cost of Weston’s in the whole province? They control the industry.

Mr. Evans: Listen to the oracle over there.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order, please. Would the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel continue? If there were fewer interjections from both sides of the House, he would be able to continue.

Mr. Johnson: For the benefit of the NDP, would like to read a short quotation from the Globe and Mail of Thursday, May 13, which states that “Canada ranked first in time lost by strikes.” That has to have an impact on the cost of all the equipment that the farmers have to buy. This government’s plan reflects the real needs of farmers more closely than the NDP cares to admit. In fact. I have many farmers in my own riding who question the need for any income scheme from the government.

Mr. Wildman: Then why are you introducing one?

Mr. Makarchuk: How much time was lost in accidents?

Mr. Breithaupt: Then you must vote against the bill.

Mr. Johnson: Farmers by nature are individuals and are highly independent. That is not intended as criticism or to imply a lack of knowledge about public affairs. It is a fact of life which the opposition parties fail to understand or even want to understand.

Interjections.

Mr. Johnson: There are some farmers who question the scope of the present legislation and other farmers who think the scope is insufficient. That is why the bill as presented represents a reasonable and moderate approach to the problem of farm income.

Mr. Wildman: You don’t please anybody.

Mr. Johnson: As the minister has pointed out time and time again the bill provides an appropriate balance between the all-embracing income scheme of the NDP and the Liberals and a bill which meets the real needs of farmers.

Unlike the socialists’ smothering love-in for farm income, this government’s legislation represents a realistic farm insurance programme in the event of natural disaster emergency. A means to help farmers when they are down and are looking for a helping hand instead of the ever-tightening hug of the socialist bear.

Mr. Warner: This is a natural disaster.

Mr. Johnson: You like that. I appeal to the depths of experience within the ranks of the Liberal Party. By supporting the present legislation they help farmers in their determination to produce quality food. Don’t hurt farmers because everything you want is not in the bill, rather let’s work together to assist the farmer where he or she needs the help. By supporting the NDP bear-hug approach, my Liberal friends are helping Ontario go the way of British Columbia on this matter and making it difficult, further down the road, to work the provincial income programme in with the national plan.

We all live in one big Canada. This government prefers to see a national plan in place rather than a fragmented and isolated programme as the NDP favours. Surely Ontario Liberals support their own federal government’s scheme, rather than the ill-conceived and pie-in-the-sky --

Mr. Bullbrook: There are two parties; they have nothing to do with each other. Be serious, would you; what obligation have we got to them? We are provincial Liberals, do you understand that?

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Johnson: -- farm income scheme. Otherwise I must rethink whether my provincial Liberal colleagues understand what socialist farming is all about. If they support this bill they support a national plan in the long run.

Interjections.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Johnson: Farmers in society end up gaining the real benefit.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Will the House be quiet too so the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel can continue?

Mr. Bullbrook: He is being provocative, it is hard to resist.

Mr. Johnson: Isn’t that what we as legislators are here to do -- to work for the best interest of society as a whole instead of always catering to special interests? Let’s put this bill through in that spirit and send it to committee for close scrutiny and improvement.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I approach this topic as a very serious one, but I find it very difficult to do that after hearing the contributions to the debate of the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel and the member for Lambton. I just want to follow up on a few things which I think the previous speaker just said. I think he said that he doesn’t want farmers to have to be told by the state when to eat breakfast and when to go to bed. I don’t really think that that is in the bill and I don’t think anyone here would advocate that sort of thing. I think that some people should be able to decide for themselves when to go to bed and when to eat breakfast.

Interjection.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Would the member deal with the principle of the bill, if he recognizes it is not in the bill.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, the previous member was dealing with the bill. He said, for instance, that farmers didn’t want an income protection plan -- or at least a large number of farmers in his riding didn’t want to have it. Yet he turns around and supports a bill that purports to be a farm income protection bill. I don’t quite understand the logic, but that’s what he said.

He also said that he thought this bill would protect the farmer against a national disaster. Quite frankly, I think the bill itself is a national disaster.

[9:15]

Mr. Makarchuk: So’s the whole Tory party.

Mr. Wildman: The member went to great length talking about land use, which I don’t really think is in the bill, but since he felt --

Hon. W. Newman: Why doesn’t the member read the bill?

Mr. Wildman: -- it was related to the bill; in a way it is, obviously. If we want to keep farmers on the land, then obviously we have to give them a decent income.

I think it’s important, though, that we should remember what a couple of these government members have said. For instance, they said that farmers don’t want a socialist programme in Ontario; but then they turned around and say that the kind of programme that we are suggesting can only work if it is national in scope and they would support it if it were national in scope. They won’t support a socialist programme if it’s in Ontario, but they’ll support it if it’s national in scope. Now that’s real logic.

The member for Lambton (Mr. Henderson) went to great lengths talking about which members in our caucus had farmers in their riding. I really don’t understand how he could ignore the fact there are a large number of farmers in Algoma, not like southwestern Ontario, especially since the greatest contribution of the former member for this riding to this Legislature was maple syrup. I really don’t understand how this member could ignore the fact that my riding has a large number of dairy producers and beef producers.

Hon. W. Newman: He did a lot more than that too.

Mr. Wildman: The dairy producers and beef producers in my riding need a lot of support and need a lot of help, because we don’t have the kind of fertile land they have in southern Ontario. We have very difficult weather conditions; we have large transportation costs, much larger than southern Ontario farmers, that make the cost of production very great and mean that we need to have some kind of programme that is going to protect the farmer against the ups and downs of the boom-bust cycle that farmers have faced for so long.

The Conservative government claims they’re introducing that kind of programme with their so-called stabilization bill, which is so similar to the Liberal bill they’ve been criticizing for two years now. One of the main excuses of the government for not introducing a bill earlier than this has been that it had to be a federal plan in scope and that the federal government’s plan was inadequate. Now they turn around and introduce a bill which is going to follow the national plan. Again, I don’t quite understand the logic.

The Tories have been promising farm income protection for two years; but really, as we’ve seen with this bill, all of those promises have just turned out to be plain stonewalling. There’s never been any real desire on the part of this government to provide farm income protection in any real sense. Really, if we were to support this bill, which covers so few of the farm products in Ontario, we would be betraying the Ontario farmers.

This plan, that goes along with the federal plan that’s been criticized for so long, really only covers a small minority of farm products. The minister and his supporters can argue, Mr. Speaker, that it protects perhaps 20 to 25 per cent or 27 per cent or 28 per cent, or whatever they want to use. We really don’t agree with that, we can’t see that it protects more than 15 per cent; but even if it did protect that many, that’s still a very small minority and it’s certainly not the major commodity groups in Ontario.

The large percentage of farmers are not protected and would be ineligible under the legislation. Again, the logic escapes me as to how the government can argue for so long that a federal plan is inadequate, and then introduce a plan which follows along with it and say that is an adequate plan. Farm income stabilization can’t be the kind of plan that is produced here; the farm groups have rejected it and we reject it.

The income stabilization plan as operated by the federal Liberals, and now apparently advocated by the provincial Tories, really is a subsidization plan. They keep arguing over there that the farmers don’t want subsidies; that’s correct, farmers don’t want subsidies. It’s our position that farmers would be willing and do want to become involved in an income insurance plan; and that’s not a subsidy plan, farmers have had enough of subsidy plans.

This plan is going to protect them by guaranteeing 90 per cent of the average market price over the last five years, with some kind of adjustment in the current year -- we don’t know exactly what, but some kind of adjustment in the current year. Basically, all this is going to do is cover out-of-pocket expenses. It doesn’t really deal with or cover the labour, management or investment if it happens to be a bad year and there has to be a payout in the programme. As far as we are concerned, farmers have had enough of subsidy programmes. One subsidy piled upon another just makes for a lot of bureaucracy and red tape and doesn’t really solve farmers’ problems.

Basically, subsidies are only designed to keep the farmer from going completely broke. They don’t really deal with the overall problem of giving some kind of stability to the whole farm income picture.

One farmer in my riding, who is enrolled in the cow-calf programme, said to me: “A lot of farmers will say that the programme is better than nothing. But in a way, it is not even better than nothing, because all it does is keep you treading water instead of drowning. But you never are able to swim. You are never able to get out of the water; you are just able to keep your head above water.”

The cow-calf programme as introduced by this government, which is better than the programme that is introduced by this bill, only gave farmers about eight cents per pound above their out-of-pocket expenses. That is certainly better than nothing, I would agree, but it doesn’t cover anything like the management and investment that farmers have put into the production of the beef.

An hon. member: No wonder they beef about it.

Mr. Wildman: So basically, the government wants to subsidize in this plan. I mean, they are paying for it out of public funds. There is no contribution by the farmers; it is a subsidy. If this government believes that farmers are against subsidies, why on earth are they introducing a plan like this? Farmers have had enough of subsidies.

We in the NDP have had enough of this approach as well. Instead, we advocate, and I think the Liberals agree with us, a voluntary farm income insurance plan to break the boom-bust cycle farmers have faced for so long. It would give farmers enough income security to encourage them to stay on the land and to farm it.

Base farm prices should be negotiated each year by the government and representative farm groups to cover the cost of production during the current year and to provide a fair return on investment, management, and labour.

Both the government and the participating farmers would pay premiums into such plans -- therefore it is not a subsidy -- to build up an insurance fund that in a poor year could compensate the participating producers for the drop in prices.

We are talking about an insurance plan, and this government has been promising that kind of plan to farmers, but they haven’t brought it into this House for debate. This government has copped out on their promises to the farmers, just as they have copped out for years. The fact that the member for Lambton didn’t realize there were any northern members with farmers in their ridings indicates how much this government really knows about farming in this province.

Interjections.

Mr. Wildman: We believe these plans must be adopted now and that they should be set up in consultation with the farm organizations to ensure that they serve the needs of the Ontario producers. That is why we are moving the reasoned amendment suggesting that we refer this back to the government to give the government time to consult with the farm groups and the different commodity groups as to what kind of plan could be introduced that would be contributory and which would serve the needs of the farmers.

We have had enough of the inadequate subsidy approach of this government. We believe it is time to negotiate farm income protection programmes that will ensure long-term security for the people who produce the food of this province; and in that way serve the interests of all of the people of the province who consume that food.

I would hope that the members of the House would support the reasoned amendment. We would certainly be willing to look at whatever changes the Liberal Party is going to introduce in an amendment to that amendment -- and hope that we would be able to produce a plan that would really serve the needs of Ontario’s farmers.

Mr. Mancini: I rise to oppose this bill. I think it falls far short of the expectations that this government has led the farm community of Ontario to expect. I think it falls far short of the expectations of the farmers themselves.

I have to say to the Minister of Agriculture and Food that since Sept. 18 he has had the opportunity to speak in many farm districts of this province. He has played the same tune over and over again -- that he is concerned about farmers and that he wants to help them in their plight, and it is always Ottawa that is in the way. Well, I dare to disagree with the minister.

I believe, and we in this party believe, the farmers in this province want a voluntary plan, one with a premium paid by the farmers themselves and by the Ontario government, with all commodities and marketing boards included, and with all commodities that are already under the protection of the federal government. We are tired of the minister sitting there and blaming Ottawa; that’s why we have a Minister of Agriculture and Food here in Ontario, so he can come to their aid when it is necessary.

One last point I would like to make -- I don’t want to repeat everything twice -- is that during the discussions on the future of this bill, I surely would want the Minister of Agriculture and Food to take into consideration farm family labour as part of the cost of production. We feel, and the farmers feel, that if their family is part of the cost of production, they surely are entitled to have that shown.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe.

Mr. Riddell: Don’t say anything you don’t believe in now, George.

Mr. Reed: Say something about the corridor. Stick to your script.

Mr. Gregory: Keep it simple so they will understand.

Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, I rise to defend this bill.

Mr. Warner: “Defend” is the right word.

Mr. McCague: I want first to respond to the reasoned amendment put forward by the New Democratic Party.

Never has one amendment said so much about how little one political party knows about the farming community. Never has one amendment said so much about the cynicism of one political party toward the farmer. Never has one amendment said so much about one party’s contempt for the Legislature.

Mr. Wildman: Are you talking about the bill or the amendment?

Mr. McCague: My colleagues and I will be proud to oppose that reasoned amendment, and let me tell you why, Mr. Speaker.

First, the amendment would serve to hoist, delay and seek the approval of this House for the postponement, with no guarantee, of a very important bill for the farmers of Ontario.

Mr. Warner: There is no date affixed in there.

Mr. McCague: That may be the brand of polities across the way, but it is not the approach of this government.

We have brought forward a bill that is necessary. Secondly -- and this may come as a surprise to our friends across the way, our friends who believe that they have a monopoly on participatory government and consultation -- when this bill is allowed to go to committee, as the farmers would like to see happen, there would be no difficulty at all, in a standing committee of this House, in undertaking the fullest possible consultation with the farming community --

Mr. Warner: They should have been consulted first.

Mr. McCague: -- to allow for the input that this government has always welcomed and always will. But my friends, there is a difference. The input we want is input based on the assumption that there will be a bill that will help farmers. Our friends opposite want some wishy-washy consultation on an insurance scheme.

Mr. Deans: Wishy-washy consultation?

Mr. Warner: This kind of consultation is wishy-washy?

Mr. Deans: Who wrote that?

Mr. McCague: Maybe they want to do to the farmers what the NDP governments in certain provinces have done to car owners.

Interjections.

Mr. McCague: Maybe they want a plan which just has farmers paying in with no payout for the farmer when things get rough.

Mr. Wildman: We just want it good for the farmers.

Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, that type of sellout of the farmers is simply not good enough for the Progressive Conservative government of Ontario. We want a more concrete framework for the farmers of Ontario. We are offering them a commitment through this legislation and, ultimately, it is the Legislature which will decide if that commitment shall be carried through. The NDP reasoned amendment is a sellout of the magnitude we have not seen for some time.

[9:30]

Mr. Swart: Look around you.

Mr. McCague: A totally urban party doesn’t understand. Unless the bill has in it the language of the bureaucracy, like income insurance, the socialists feel uncomfortable. When you talk the language of the farmer, the language of stabilization, the NDP feels uncomfortable. The NDP amendment is interesting in another sense.

Mr. Deans: Is this why I am giving you research money?

Mr. McCague: They want broad consultations, provided, of course, the terms being used are those of farm income insurance; yet they will not allow a committee of this House to move with a concrete proposal and seek advice, suggestions and, if necessary, amendments. They will not allow that because they will vote to stop the bill.

Interestingly enough but not surprisingly, the Liberals appear to be with them on that; with them in denying the people a chance to look at the bill; with them in denying a committee of the Legislature, on which the opposition parties would have a majority, to seek the views of all farm organizations in Ontario and all farm groups. This government has tremendous respect for the Federation of Agriculture but we must have respect also for individuals as well. We won’t be dictated to by any one group in this province, unlike the two parties opposite.

Mr. Eakins: You tell ‘em.

Mr. McCague: We will oppose the reasoned amendment and support the bill. I want to mention some of the things that this government has done for the farmers, and there has been reference made to lack of programmes. I hope all members remember the farm tax reduction programme, the capital grants programme, the northern Ontario agricultural development grant, the young farmers’ credit programme, ARDA grants, industrial milk incentive loans and the drainage loan.

Mr. Eakins: A good speech; who wrote it?

Interjection.

Mr. McCague: Thank you very much for the compliment. I would just like the members opposite to be cognizant of the situation which may well arise in Niagara region. It has already been noted that there is considerable frost damage to the crops and I would hate to see the parties opposite deny those fruit growers the opportunity to participate in this programme.

Mr. Riddell: They get designated under the programme.

Mr. McCague: There is nothing wrong with Bill 96, even though the opposition parties can argue that the bill should go further. We can do no harm with the bill as printed.

Mr. G. I. Miller: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to speak on Bill 96, which we are opposing. I would like to quote on behalf of Gordon Hill:

“‘The Ontario government’s farm income stabilization legislation is of almost no potential benefit to Ontario farmers,’ said Mr. Hill.”

I would like to point out that the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture was very critical of Mr. Hill. I feel that the Federation of Agriculture under his leadership has contributed much to agriculture in Ontario and for the advancement and a better return on behalf of all farmers in Ontario.

Mr. Riddell: The president of the federation speaks very highly of the parliamentary assistant. I just can’t understand it. He didn’t consult with the minister first.

Mr. G. I. Miller: I would like to point out too that the vice-president on hearing the details of the legislation commented:

“Once again the Ontario government has proffered its usual hollow carrot to the Ontario farmers.”

In the past, the financial returns for good food production in Canada has not been sufficient to enable the food producers to compete in the market with other potential users of land, such as industry and urban development. Consequently, much food land has been just and food producers have been forced to move to other and less productive land, which must indicate policies to assist food producers to keep valuable food land in production.

Any effective provincial agricultural policy must contain measures which afford farmers adequate income protection, combined with the means to preserve prime agricultural land specifically for food production. Clearly, any policy which neglected the welfare of the farmer would not only be unjust but would also be inefficient and would ultimately fail in its objective of insuring our food supplies and protecting our agricultural land.

There is increasing evidence of the need to insure farm income stability in this province. For a long time farmers have struggled to gain economic and social stability and many farmers have only obtained income security upon retirement, after they have sold their farm holdings. Economic pressures have forced thousands of farmers to leave farming and many thousands more have had to supplement their farm income with off-farm employment, at least on a part-time basis. Moreover, young people are not being encouraged to go into farming. I think, again, the IMPIP programme brought in by the government two years ago put young farmers in the financial position where they were unstable and many of them, even some in my riding, were in a financial position that they could lose their investment plus their lifetime savings.

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

The Liberal Party is in favour of a farm income stabilization programme, on a voluntary basis, which world guarantee a viable income to full-time farmers who are prepared to enter into such a plan and contribute premiums. Such a plan would be financed by a combination of farmer payments and contributions from provincial and federal governments. Costs of production for each commodity would be established cooperatively by the farmers’ organizations, by marketing boards and the Ministry of Agriculture and Food rather than it being a subsidy programme. When market prices fall below the established cost of production, a make-up payment would come from the insurance plan and the plan would provide insurance only against the failure of the policy. It would be directed toward having consumers pay the legitimate cost of quality food production.

Farm marketing board procedures would be utilized to gear production to consumption, and the cost of production plus a reasonable profit. Under this scheme the farmer would not have to worry about his increasing input costs because he would have a reasonable assurance that he would at least recover his costs of production.

Mr. McKessock: Mr. Speaker, Bill 96 really isn’t worth talking about but it does give us a chance to put forth a few reasons why we should have a good income protection plan, and we will try and amend this bill sufficiently to do just that.

In a newspaper article just recently, the headlines were, “Healthy Agriculture Leads to a Strong Nation.” It points out every country needs a healthy agricultural community or that country just doesn’t prosper.

In the same article it also mentions where the county director of education received a $9,500 raise, up from $38,000 to $47,500, in a year. I’m sure there are a great many farmers in this province that are getting alone on less than the increase, the $9,500, let alone receiving that kind of a salary.

The member for Lambton stated that if we had any consideration for the farmers in Ontario we would vote for this bill. Well we certainly do have consideration for 100 per cent of the farmers in Ontario, and not just the 13 per cent that this bill covers. The member for Middlesex Stated that the bloom was off income stabilization plans in other provinces.

Mr. Eaton: I was quoting what was said by someone from British Colombia.

Mr. McKessock: If he is a true farmer, he should know when the bloom is off that’s when the harvest begins.

I certainly have often agreed with the minister when he condemned the federal stabilization plan. It was therefore amazing to me that he came out with a plan of similar make-up, which suggests a payment of 90 per cent of the average price over the last five years. I could never quite understand the relevance of the last five years to the cost of production.

The federal stabilization plan has been so inadequate that that is why we asked for a voluntary provincial farm income protection plan to cover all farm products. This one that the minister has come in with, Bill 96, covers no livestock, unless we count rabbits, and some fruits and vegetables. In talking to the apple growers in my riding, I find that they too will soon come under the federal Bill C-SO, which will make them ineligible for the provincial plan. So I can’t see what good it is going to be, except for the Conservative government to be able to say that they brought in legislation for an income stabilization plan.

Mr. Riddell: Just to cover their flanks.

Mr. McKessock: What is the use of bringing in a plan that is as shallow as this one and covers next to nothing? Also, how are we going to support the agricultural industry in Ontario with only $6 million? The motor companies set their prices based on the cost of production plus a profit, and the government saw fit to drop the sales tax for them, indirectly giving them a subsidy of $45 million in a few short months last year. The government gave people who bought new homes for the first time a subsidy of $135 million. But it gives the farmers in Ontario $6 million or $7 million.

I can see how the minister doesn’t mean it when he talks about not wanting imports, but in fact he is encouraging them more and more, because with the little bit of lackadaisical support that he gives the Ontario farmers in Bill 96, the farmers will continue to disappear in Ontario.

Mr. Eaton: Is that bill going to stop imports?

Mr. McKessock: Each year, the imports will continue to rise until in a very few years we will be very dependent on other provinces and other countries for our food. Other provinces have taken steps to protect agriculture in their province, but this government would rather leave Ontario’s agricultural future in the hands of the federal government.

It is not that Quebec has passed an unfair piece of legislation against Ontario, but rather that Quebec has given her agriculture a real stabilization still wanting in Ontario. Just after the minister bragged about increasing the production of milk in Ontario so that we won’t lose it to other provinces, he came in with a stabilization plan that does nothing for these farmers, who raised that production for the minister and, in doing so, got themselves into an awful financial mess.

What is the difference whether we lose milk production last year or next year to other provinces? We are certainly going to lose it with this type of a programme.

The production increase has been accomplished through the IMPIP loans and by encouraging farmers to produce to receive the forgivable part of the loans. The minister could do something to keep the new shippers, and the shippers who expanded last year, by bringing in the dairy business into the stabilization plan also. It is not only the new shippers and the ones who have expanded who are in trouble, but also the farmers who have brought their sons into the business. They cannot afford that 15 per cent cut in quota.

I said at the time this cut happened to the dairy business that it was too bad the farm stabilization plan was not in force to take care of this temporary situation. It is temporary because the can shippers have to stop shipping in cans by October, 1977, and there will be a lot of those farmers who won’t go bulk and will cease to ship milk.

[9:45]

If the government does not do something to help these dairy farmers who are in trouble they will be going bankrupt and in about a year you’ll be looking for more milk and it won’t be long, probably, until you are looking to Quebec for it.

I do not see how I can support this bill in its present form. I dealt briefly, in my reply to the Throne Speech, with the farm income stabilization plan which the Ontario Federation of Agriculture had recommended. If this Bill 96 could be changed and be administered along these lines, and cover all farm products, then I would support it.

In summary, Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister, the real reason we need our farm income stabilization plan -- I would rather say price protection plan -- is to ensure the continuation of the family farm. Without production they will become extinct and the large corporations will take over; and then watch the price of food rise. They will not become extinct because they are inefficient, far from it, but because they cannot afford to produce at a loss to ride out the bad years the way the large corporations can.. We also need protection of this sort to ensure the continuation of a strong agricultural industry in Ontario, now and forever. Each year Ontario is dropping in its percentage of production in many agricultural products in Canada. Agriculture is a continuous, ongoing resource which this country was built on; it could save this country again in the years to come if we give it adequate attention now.

The plan itself is to give protection on all farm commodities similar to what the OFA has recommended. I’m in favour of such a plan, with government and producer participation. The price of products should be direct cost plus reasonable interest on investment on a specified amount of production. The amendments proposed on this bill will allow for full participation of the farm people and farm organizations to change this bill, and I have faith in the farm organizations in this province to present the facts and figures needed to establish the best plan possible for the farmers and consumers of this province.

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker. I had originally been given 10 minutes in this debate but I’m slated to be through at 9:50, which gives me two minutes so I’ll endeavour to wind up in that time in accordance with the agreement which we’ve entered into on all sides of the House.

This bill is no farm income plan; it’s a straight subsidy programme masquerading as a legitimate farm income protection plan. To call this bill a form of farm income protection is to cast a blight on the name of the farm income protection programme.

I think it’s been a good debate. We’ve had a little cut and thrust on all sides and I think the issues have been clearly set. The issue is the fact that the government has reneged on a programme to the farm community that was expected and needed.

It was needed for two reasons. The first reason is that the farm community in the last several years has undergone tremendous cost input pressures. The cost which farmers have to pay for their inputs today are substantially higher than they have ever been a tremendous escalation has taken place in the last two and three years.

For instance I give you one example, the example of farm machinery. A 130-horsepower tractor three years ago cost $12,000, today it costs $22,500; fertilizer, energy, the whole thing. Farmers are faced with tremendous costs and so it’s put them on an entirely different price plateau than they’ve ever been on before. When the boom-bust cycle happens to be in the bust phase of the cycle, and farmers are faced with these tremendously high costs, it means they’re right out of business in a very short time.

The other point is the imports. It’s been touched on this afternoon. There’s been very intensive pressure with respect to imports in the farm community these last few years. I’m not laying any blame at this point, I’m just saying it’s a fact of life. There it is. And so those two factors have combined to create a great instability in the farm community.

The most needed thing in the farm community right now is stability, and in our view the only way that this can be achieved is through a farm income protection plan. A true farm income protection plan -- not the bill which the minister has proposed, but a true farm income protection plan. I say that as far as we’re concerned, the government has made a commitment to that plan, it’s reneged on that plan, and what we’re prepared to do and what the NDP is prepared to do, is simply say to the government we’re postponing this bill; we’re not defeating it, we’re postponing it. We’re sending it back to the government. Let it take it back to its drawing board, come back with a good bill and we’ll support it. That’s our position and I hope that the government has sense enough to do just that.

Mr. Bullbrook: I’m going to take all of one moment because I’m not going to deal with the principle with respect to farm income stabilization, well enunciated by my colleagues of expertise. I want to ask, through you, a question that might be responded to by the minister; I’m very interested in this. Section 14 enshrines a new principle I believe, one thing I want to adopt. It reads as follows: “The minister may, with the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, enter into agreements with the government of Canada to further the carrying out of the purpose and intent of this Act.”

The question is, does this government believe that it requires legislative approval to enter into agreements with the government of Canada? If so, I certainly support that totally.

Mr. Deans: I’m going to be very brief because the time is growing short and we do want to get to the vote on the matter tonight. I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is a memorable evening in the Province of Ontario, particularly in the Legislature, because it’s the first time that I can recall that we in the legislative chamber have ever honestly dealt with the problems of the farm community.

I can remember listening to the previous Minister of Agriculture and Food and others talking about farmers and telling us that we didn’t understand them, and that they had all of the knowledge with regard to farming. I think that tonight, maybe for the first time, the Legislature has finally begun to assert itself as a sovereign body and to deal honestly and forthrightly with what it knows to be the major problems confronting a significant portion of the people in the province.

It’s also important tonight -- it’s significant and memorable -- because for the first time that I can recall a spokesman for the government has frontally attacked the president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. The member for Middlesex (Mr. Eaton), as my leader so ably pointed out earlier, attacked personally --

Mr. Eaton: I didn’t attack, I criticized.

Mr. Lewis: He personally abused.

Mr. Deans: -- personally attacked and threatened the president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture --

Mr. Lewis: And his executive.

Mr. Deans: -- during his discussion --

An hon. member: Shame.

Mr. Deans: -- even to the extent of leaving the inference that he, having supported him in the early going, might not be able to do that now.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Same old socialist attack.

Mr. Deans: I think that it’s time that the government of the Province of Ontario understood that those people who are --

Mr. Eaton: Point of order. Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

Mr. Eaton: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a point of order that I did not attack anyone --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Eaton: Also, I did not imply I would withdraw my membership at any time. I as a member have the right to criticize, as any member does -- unlike, maybe, the people in the member’s own organization, the NDP.

Mr. S. Smith: That was a point of disorder, Mr. Speaker:

Mr. Deans: Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that the member, of course, can interpret his remarks in whatever way he deems it most appropriate now, but I was here and I listened to him. I heard him say that at the time that the current president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture was seeking office, he had been one of those who had nominated him, but -- but what, I’m not yet sure.

Mr. Eaton: I didn’t say “but” at all.

Mr. Lewis: That was a reckless remark.

Mr. Deans: But anyway, let me go on and say that tonight the drift, as far as this government and agriculture are concerned, has ended. Tonight we’re dealing, for the first time that I can recall at least, with the future of farmers and the farm community. We have established it, as it ought to have been established many years ago, as a priority matter for the Legislature.

We’ve heard many speeches made in this Legislature by any number of ministers and any number of members on this side about the need to preserve agricultural land, but we have never been able to tie that to the actuality of having to make sure that those people who farmed that land were able to acquire for themselves and their families an income sufficient to allow them to live in the community that we have substantially created.

I represent a farming community to some extent. There are a goodly number of farmers who live in the riding that I represent, and they are from any number of different agricultural areas. They range all the way from beef and dairy products to the fruit belt produce. And I don’t think that this government has ever fully understood the problems that confront the majority of those people living in the Niagara Peninsula.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Nonsense.

Mr. Deans: In fact, even the member for Brock, in spite of all his protestations, has rarely if ever got up on his feet and spoken about the needs of the farmers of the Niagara Peninsula.

Hon. Mr. Welch: That goes without saying.

Mr. MacDonald: Other than wines.

Mr. Nixon: Except in favour of imported grapes. That’s the only time I remember.

Mr. Deans: Every time I rose in this House and attempted to put forward what were the obvious problems of those people farming and providing for the needs of all of us, it was hooted and hollered at by most of the government benches.

Interjections.

Mr. Lewis: Except for grapes -- that’s all the member for Brock is interested in.

Mr. Deans: Except for grapes; that’s right. In fact, we even have a proposition before us again --

Mr. MacDonald: He is a political wino -- that’s what he is.

Mr. Deans: -- to ensure that there will be some kind of grape concentrate made available, and perhaps to the detriment of the farmers in the area.

I have seen the kind of encroachment that takes place in the farm community. I’ve seen the kinds of pressures that are put on the farmers. They legitimately want to continue to farm and have a deeply felt and an obvious commitment to ensuring that the needs of the total community are met with regard to the farm. Yet this government has not ever, in my recollection, ever stated clearly where it stood --

Hon. Mr. Welch: Nonsense.

Mr. Deans: -- with regard to the protection of the income for farmers; or for that matter, with regard to the protection of the farmlands themselves.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Nonsense.

Mr. MacDonald: He’s right, you haven’t. You have shown where you stood, and it is not the right place. It is not the right place. You are on the wrong side of the line.

Mr. Deans: Let me tell you when this --

Hon. W. Newman: Stop making political propaganda -- lay it on the line.

Mr. Lewis: If you don’t like it, dissolve the House and have your election. Go ahead.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Let’s get on with an orderly debate.

Mr. Deans: When this government brought in this totally inadequate piece of legislation, my colleague, the member for York South, said immediately that this didn’t fit the bill. This wasn’t what was needed in the Province of Ontario. This didn’t even begin to address itself to the many problems confronting the farm community.

My colleague for York South stood up and he said immediately that this bill would have to be defeated or at least substantially amended. And we said to the government at the time: “Don’t you think it would maybe be wiser in the overall picture for you to take the bill back and to bring in something much more acceptable, much more to fit the needs?”

We pointed out to the government that it wasn’t only our opinion. It was also the opinion of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and it was the opinion of the farmers’ union that there was a need for a much more comprehensive piece of legislation, one that would address itself to the real needs and not to the superficial needs that this government continually addresses itself to.

An hon. member: Withdraw it.

Mr. Deans: And so --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Deans: -- we were faced with an option. We could choose on the --

Hon. W. Newman: You don’t want to go to committee and let the farmers talk about it.

Mr. Deans: -- one hand to oppose this totally inadequate bill, to simply vote against it and to do away with it once and for all.

Or, as my colleague did, the member for Riverdale, we could sit down and we could design a reasoned amendment which would enable the government to save face, which would enable the Liberals to save face and which would provide for the people of the Province of Ontario and the farm community the kind of protection that they need.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: All the trained seals are clapping.

Mr. Deans: Let me tell you, we recognize --

Interjections.

Mr. Deans: -- Mr. Speaker, that on balance this government deserves to be defeated on the bill. We recognize --

Hon. Mr. Welch: Never, never.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Never.

[10:00]

Mr. Deans: We recognize that in fact this was a matter of confidence; that this was a cornerstone of this government’s policy. But, in keeping with the commitment we have to the Province of Ontario, we decided that on balance it would be better to offer the government yet another chance to bring in a piece of legislation that would be both additive and worthwhile, and so we did.

Mr. Mancini: That’s posturing. That’s all that is.

Mr. Deans: Let me say that the Liberal amendment, unnecessary though it is, is acceptable to us. That doesn’t matter. When they finally move it, we’re quite prepared to have it incorporated in our more reasoned and reasonable amendment. But that’s beside the point. Let me tell you that what was moved by my colleague from York South is the essence of a proper farm income protection programme. If there is going to be farm income protection in this province then it has to be around the lines of the programme put forward by my colleague. I say to this government that tonight it’ll be defeated on a cornerstone of its policy, and tomorrow when it moves its motion of confidence in the government it will be defeated again hopefully, because the Liberals may at last have found the guts to stand up.

If not, then I suppose the government will continue with inadequate legislation until at some point or other, it will decide to have an election.

An hon. member: You’ll lose.

Mr. Deans: The point I’m going to make is that the government will never recover the confidence of the farm community because it has betrayed them, because it didn’t talk to them, because it never understood them and because it doesn’t care about them.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I not only rise to support this bill, but I rise to tell you that this is a good bill for the agricultural community in the Province of Ontario. It’s quite obvious that the members opposite in both parties have really not understood this bill and have not really read it carefully. They talked about other matters and they wandered away from the bill into other matters. They don’t fully understand this bill and what it’s all about.

Hon. Mr. Welch: They just don’t understand.

Interjections.

Hon. W. Newman: I look at some of the people who have spoken tonight and I would like to make just a few comments. I made some before dinner but I’m better after dinner. The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk stood up and indicated there should be one agency bargaining for the farmers in the province.

Mr. Lewis: Louder, louder.

Hon. W. Newman: I’d like him to clarify at some time in his speech. Where does he want to go? What does he believe in? Or what about the member for Windsor-Sandwich?

Mr. Kerrio: Answer the questions.

Hon. W. Newman: I’ll answer your questions and every darn one, if you’ll give me the time. The member for Windsor-Sandwich is thoroughly inconsistent. This great party over there wants low food prices for the consumer and high prices for the farmer. He can’t have it both ways. Don’t try to stand up and sell the public on that sort of rhetoric because they won’t buy it.

Interjections.

Hon. W. Newman: Nobody has more concern about the farmer than this party has. I don’t want you to come into this place and say we don’t support the farmers in this province. We have with many millions of dollars over the years and many programmes for the farmers in this province.

Interjections.

Hon. W. Newman: You stand up there with your rhetoric and you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Mr. Eakins: Did the Treasurer write your speech?

Mr. Davidson: You are really annoyed now.

Hon. W. Newman: I mean it sincerely that you don’t know what you’re talking about. I get a little bit annoyed. Sure I’ll get louder.

Mr. Deans: Window-dressing.

Interjections.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, because of the time limitations on what I have to say tonight, I’ll try to be brief, but I’ll find it difficult. I believe the member for Essex North, that famous farmer and a very capable chap, said Russia took away incentive. What happened to the agricultural production in that country? I’m telling you this: If you follow the present route you want to follow in that party and in that party, you could kill the incentive of the agricultural community of this province, the backbone of this country.

Interjections.

Hon. W. Newman: I say this in all sincerity, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

Hon. W. Newman: Yes, I get upset. I certainly do get upset when the leader of your party can stand up here and talk about the young farmers of this province and no future for them, when he doesn’t know anything about what is happening in our agricultural schools, he doesn’t know about what is happening to our students who are graduating.

Mr. Nixon: He made a great speech.

Mr. Bullbrook: The decibel level is unbelievable here.

Hon. W. Newman: Our agricultural schools are full and a vast majority of the students are going back to the farms and taking part in the family farm activity or getting their own farms going because of the programmes in this province. There were 1,143 students this year, and well over 50 per cent went back to the farms! Don’t tell me the young people aren’t interested in farming and don’t want to go back to it. They certainly do; the record stands on its own, the record stands on its own!

Interjections.

Mr. S. Smith: What’s happened to the average during your 33 years?

Mr. Nixon: Why even you left the farm.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is getting a little bit silly.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, I am sure that the farming --

Interjections.

Mr. Bullbrook: Keep the decibel level down.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, I don’t need any help from the back-benches, thank you very much.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure the hon. members must realize the spectators who are here tonight from the farming communities and others who will read this will consider it is a pretty deplorable evening.

An hon. member: You are right.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member who just interjected is not helping things either.

Now let’s finish this debate in a more orderly fashion. The hon. minister will continue, and please let’s pay a little heed to these words. Thank you.

Hon. W. Newman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would just like to comment on the remarks of the member for Timiskaming who talked about the industrial milk programme. I realize there are some problems with the industrial milk programme, not only federally but provincially and we are working on them. We have made certain announcements. It has nothing to do with this bill because milk is under supply management and comes under formula pricing.

I know you talk about wandering away from the various programmes. We did, but you know it is sort of interesting to note tonight, and I won’t go into any more detail than I have to, but I happen to believe -- contrary to what you believe over there in the Liberal Party -- that Mr. Whelan, the Hon. Eugene Whelan, is sincerely interested in the well-being of the agriculture community of this province and of this country.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. W. Newman: I tell you, when I hear you knocking him tonight in the House it bothers me. You used him in the last election, yes, you did.

Mr. Kerrio: So did you guys.

Mr. Ruston: And your party did, too.

Hon. W. Newman: I will tell you this, he is sincere in his concern for the well-being of the agricultural community of this province.

He may not be getting the support he wants of his government but I work with him --

Mr. MacDonald: His problem is the same as yours.

Hon. W. Newman: -- trying to work out programmes to solve problems in this province.

I could talk about all the various members who have spoken tonight. I have to look at the member who seconded many resolutions or bills here today, the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini), who says I blame Ottawa. He well knows that had the bill been brought in at this point in time, thanks to Mr. Whelan some of their greenhouse developers in that area, who were helped out by Mr. Whelan, would have come under our bill. Let him not forget the fact that voting against this bill tonight will hurt him in his riding.

I could go on and talk about other members. I look at the member for Huron-Bruce who talked about imports being a problem. Yes, they are a problem; we will be meeting in Ottawa very shortly. We have set up a special committee to deal with that. Section 14 of the bill complements the federal Bill C-50 which allows us to move into it.

I am not going to go into any great detail on the individual members’ comments except as I go through the points that were talked about this afternoon. I think some of the main points of the bill were missed this afternoon.

Let me emphasize once again a point that has been sidetracked in this debate; the government of Ontario has always said that if an income stabilization programme is to be fully effective it should be national in scope and should offer a meaningful level of support to as many farm products as possible. We still hold to that view.

We are not satisfied with the federal legislation passed almost a year ago. It doesn’t go far enough to meet the needs of the agricultural community in Ontario. Ever since my appointment as Minister of Agriculture and Food, I have been trying to get its provisions widened and improved to meet our needs in the Province of Ontario. I am still trying and will continue to try as the days go by.

Meanwhile, a need exists that must be filled to strengthen the agricultural base of this province. Surely there is no better way to ensure that farmers will stay on their land producing food than to ensure that economic --

Mr. Conway: Read it carefully.

Hon. W. Newman: -- pressures won’t drive them off the land when the market for their products is depressed. We all know whose voices have been loudest in the discussion of ways to protect our food-producing capacity. We all know who decided this complex question could be stripped down and distorted to a few slick pages that might appeal to some urban voters, or to --

Mr. Renwick: Why don’t you stick to your own bill?

Hon. Mr. Newman: I am speaking to my own bill because I wrote this myself.

Interjections.

Mr. Deans: Is that special?

Mr. Nixon: What do you keep Don Beeney around there for?

Hon. W. Newman: Now we have a plan --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. W. Newman: -- to strengthen the farmer’s ability to keep the farmer on his land. Now we see those self-same, self-proclaimed protectors of our farm land trying to deny farmers the opportunity even to speak in committee on our plan. The Leader of the --

Interjections.

Mr. Peterson: Be quiet, it’s a very moving speech.

Hon. W. Newman: -- Opposition has called the situation absurd, ludicrous and shameful. I call his attitude shameful. The Leader of the Opposition has conveniently ignored the fact that his party precipitated --

Mr. Nixon: You really reversed your position from the election.

Hon. W. Newman: -- this sorry situation, but he cannot ignore the fact if at his party decided to deny farm organizations the right to say what they think of our plan in the proper forum for discussion --

Mr. Lewis: We did? What did we do?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. W. Newman: -- we have heard the NDP’s bizarre explanation: It doesn’t like our plan; it doesn’t think the minority of farmers in this province like our plan, therefore it won’t let farmers say why they don’t like our plan and ask us to change it. Instead we are supposed to change that plan into an NDP plan, then the farmers will like it.

Interjections.

Hon. W. Newman: And then the Legislature can go ahead with the discussion of an NDP plan, otherwise -- no plan at all. That’s what they are saying.

Mr. Renwick: We didn’t say no plan at all.

Hon. W. Newman: That’s socialistic logic. For all I know it may make sense to a socialist, but believe you me it won’t make sense to the farmers in this province.

Interjections.

Mr. Davidson: You don’t believe farmers are intelligent, eh?

Hon. W. Newman: We have also heard the Liberals’ explanations in support of the NDP position. They carry even less conviction than the NDP statements if that’s possible. More correctly I should say we have heard explanations from some Liberal members. I notice that many Liberals have missed --

Mr. Nixon: I think you missed a line there.

Interjections.

Hon. W. Newman: I guess I missed the line that says they don’t understand the rural people of this province.

At least I can understand the NDP members --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. W. Newman: -- who hope to cause an election the voters don’t want. The Liberal attitude puzzles me a great degree. Why would Liberal members, particularly those representing important agricultural areas, consider stifling discussion of this bill in committee? The government’s not afraid of such discussion.

Mr. Nixon: Because you reversed your position. You backed down on your leader’s promise.

Hon. W. Newman: We welcome that discussion. How could a member hope to explain to the farmers he represents that rather than let the stabilization plan take its knocks in committee be decided farmers should get no stabilization plan at all?

Mr. Davidson: Very easily. That’s up to the minister.

Hon. W. Newman: We are not saying Bill 96 is perfect. We welcome constructive criticism, not the kind of stuff we’ve been hearing from those politicians who don’t understand the kind of hard sense we would expect from farmers who would be affected by this bill. If we found the majority of those affected were opposed --

Interjections.

Hon. W. Newman: -- to certain measures, does anyone here imagine that this minority government could afford to close its ears to their suggestions?

Mr. MacDonald: You have.

[10:15]

Hon. W. Newman: No, we haven’t, you have. In the absence of a comprehensive national programme, we have brought in what I sincerely believe to be the best programme the province can afford at this time. It dovetails with the federal programme, so it won’t disturb the national farm products structure, and yet it permits a higher degree of support in emergency situations than Ottawa is willing to offer.

Talking about going over 90 per cent and the cost of production figures, I will tell you something. It is very interesting to hear our friends opposite in the Liberal Party talking against the man they thought so highly of just a short time ago.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

An hon. member: Your friend, not ours.

Hon. W. Newman: And I want to quote from the federal agricultural estimates in Ottawa. Mr. Whelan said, “The provinces have not co-operated on the interdepartmental committee that was formed last year to come up with a national cow-calf plan.”

Interjections.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Whelan said, and I quote: “The provinces came and had meetings with us, went home and drafted their legislation and put it to their own Houses very rapidly. They put their own plans into force and then said, Bail us out, but under our conditions.’”

Mr. Reid: Time.

Hon. W. Newman: He said: “I do not call it consultation, I do not call it proper co-operation and development of a national plan.”

Mr. Whelan concluded his remarks in this letter by saying: “I will deliver a cow-calf programme only when I get full co-operation, and when I can make sure it is a national programme.”

I said that we believe in national programmes. Mr. Whelan knows it, and the government in Ottawa knows it, that the programmes that we brought forward are compatible with his programmes.

Mr. Mancini: What do we need you for?

Hon. W. Newman: It kind of bothers me when we talk about --

Mr. Peterson: Take a break, Bill; you must be very tired.

Hon. W. Newman: I am not going to take a break until I have told you all exactly where I think you stand. We talked about fires today, but our programme would cover 27 per cent of Ontario’s farm products, twice the quantity the official NDP agricultural critic would have you believe. It would provide income protection for every Ontario producer who lacks it today. No farmer should ever have to consider giving up food production for another line of work simply because he doesn’t have the financial resources to outlast a slump period.

Mr. Reid: You did, Bill; and it was a mistake.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. W. Newman: At the same time the plan would not interfere with the ability of the free market to find its own level.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Hear, hear.

Mr. S. Smith: You woke up the old Tory.

Hon. W. Newman: Today, for example, their main attack was soya beans and their prices. Since May 1, Ontario growers’ prices for soya beans have increased by about $1.75 a bushel. That’s the sort of boom the farmers wait for. They will continue to reap the full benefit under our plan. They know it will last. Prices will fall again, but with income stabilization protection they can say with confidence, “Only so low, and no lower.” They can continue planning for the future without fears; knowing the minimum income to expect from their product. It is highly unlikely that all the commodities covered under Bill 96 would suffer serious market downturns at the same time.

Mr. Conway: What about fertilizers?

Hon. W. Newman: We hope the fund would build up in the favourable years to become self-sufficient, but we have promised to provide as much money as the fund might require at any time.

I would like to go on and talk about that; but I won’t, because we don’t have time. But I would like to give some estimated costs of farm income stabilization to the Ontario government. We could be paying out for apples in this present year approximately $5.8 million to the apple producers of this province -- and those members stand up and deny the programme. Go back and tell the apple producers that.

An hon. member: Your heart is on the other side, Bill.

Hon. W. Newman: Go back and tell the apple producers that.

Mr. Peterson: Don’t point your finger; look what happened to Rhodes.

Hon. W. Newman: As I said before, we don’t claim this is a perfect plan. If we found a majority of producers affected wanted changes in this provision --

Mr. Riddell: What was your promise?

Hon. W. Newman: -- we would consider changing them. But we most emphatically will not change the principle of our free enterprise plan, to embrace the socialist principles of the NDP scheme. On that point of principle we are immovable.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

Mr. Reid: The cameras are going off in a minute.

Hon. W. Newman: Even the NDP can’t be so naive about agriculture as to think we didn’t consider the possibilities of plans such as they proposed. Of course, we studied it, and in detail -- then we rejected it.

The flowerpot farmers of the NDP talk of covering the producers’ full cost of production, plus a return on his investment, management and labour. They seem to think they can tell a farmer, “Go ahead, you can’t lose” -- and somehow avoid the only consequence of such an incentive; over-production that would flood the market with surpluses.

Mr. Davison: Did you write this, Bill? Did you rehearse this?

Hon. W. Newman: If the official opposition had even one real farmer sitting in this House --

Mr. Reid: Did you rehearse this? You’re not doing badly.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. W. Newman: -- maybe he could make them understand the levels of productivity that Ontario’s efficient farmers could achieve with an incentive like that. Maybe one honest-to-God farmer among the theorists could explain the havoc that would be created for them in the marketplace. Maybe he could show them what happened when the federal government underestimated the dairy farmers’ enormous capacity to produce and why in two years they have moved from undersupply to a situation where Canada has millions of dollars’ worth of surplus dairy products sitting in warehouses. The only way out of the dilemma would be to impose government production controls on Ontario farmers, who don’t want and don’t need production controls. The idea is as repugnant to a free-enterprise government as it is to Ontario’s free-enterprise farmers.

We all heard much from the hon. member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk about his desire --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. W. Newman: -- that the stabilization programme be voluntary. I can only point out to him when incentive pricing results in production controls, those production controls surely will not be voluntary. Production controls must be compulsory if they are to work at all.

An hon. member: Time.

Hon. W. Newman: No, we are not out of time.

Mr. Peterson: Was that in your speech, Bill, or did you make that up all on your own?

Hon. W. Newman: Right now they’re growing corn on more than two million acres in this province. They’re getting 70 per cent more corn from every acre than their fathers did 40 years ago.

Mr. Reid: We’re getting a lot of fertilizer out of this speech.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. W. Newman: Can anyone seriously imagine this government telling our corn growers, “Okay, we are going to do you a favour through a new stabilization bill. We’re going to tell you, from now on you can grow only so much corn in Ontario, even though the farmers in Quebec can grow and sell as much as they like”? Can anyone seriously consider --

An hon. member: Time.

Mr. Wildman: You are giving us enough corn to last this year.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are wasting time with interjections.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I happen to believe that the vast majority of the agricultural community neither want nor expect any government to cover their full costs of production and guarantee them a profit. All they want is a helping hand when times get tough through no fault of their own.

Mr. Nixon: Just a little bit of help.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. There seems to be an indication that there was a time limit on this debate, and I believe it must have expired. Perhaps the hon. minister would bring his remarks to a close.

Mr. Nixon: That is what we understood.

Mr. Singer: Let him file the rest of his remarks.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I understand I have two minutes left. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Welch: That’s right, two minutes.

Hon. W. Newman: All the farmers want is a helping hand --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We can’t hear the hon. minister.

Hon. W. Newman: -- when times get tough through no fault of their own -- and I don’t think they’d even want it if they thought our offer came straight from taxes.

Mr. S. Smith: Keep your word.

Hon. W. Newman: Standing order 41 of this House provides that no motion or amendment, the subject matter of which has been decided upon, can again be proposed during the same session. Do the hon. members opposite realize what that means to the farmers of this province?

Mr. Singer: What does that mean?

Hon. W. Newman: There is no excuse whatsoever for turning the perfectly straightforward democratic procedures of this House into the farce that we have witnessed tonight.

Mr. Breithaupt: Speak for yourself.

Hon. W. Newman: And just as there is no excuse, there is no reason for this farce other than sheer political expediency.

Mr. Roy: The only farce is you.

Hon. W. Newman: Bill 96 should have received first and second readings and gone before the standing committee on resources development for third reading.

Mr. R. S. Smith: You said it shouldn’t go there. You said in the House it shouldn’t go there. You changed your mind.

Hon. W. Newman: That is the stage where the opposition should have done its clowning. We might have been more inclined to excuse it in committee because the farmers of Ontario would have had their chance there to say what they think of the bill. We would have heard some common sense instead of political posturing, and we would have heard it from the farmers who would be affected by the bill.

Mr. Reid: This speech would be more effective if you weren’t reading it.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order.

Hon. W. Newman: That would be the normal path for the bill to follow. Third reading would move us ahead to square three. Instead we’ve been shoved back to square one. Indeed, we’ve been shoved back past square one, because this government is being asked to consider in debate a form of farm income protection that we considered and debated long ago and rejected long ago.

Mr. Reid: That is where the speech writer went that the Premier fired.

Hon. W. Newman: We have been forced back to square one by political charades, that will make the proceedings of this House the laughingstock of Canada. I think those on the other side of the House know, as well as I do, that the farmers of Ontario won’t be laughing. They will be disgusted.

Mr. Conway: He did write this speech.

Hon. W. Newman: They will know they will be denied any hope of an Ontario farm income stabilization programme this year.

An hon. member: Time.

Mr. Singer: Is that square three or square four?

Hon. W. Newman: And make no mistake about it, they’ll know whom to blame.

Mr. Makarchuk: Give me liberty or give me death!

Hon. W. Newman: Yes, the hon. members opposite don’t want to hear any more because they don’t want to hear the truth. They just come ploughing in.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order, please. Ready for the question?

Hon. W. Newman had moved second reading of Bill 96. Mr. MacDonald had moved an amendment that the bill be not now read a second time but be referred back to the government to have incorporated therein the principles of a farm income insurance plan which should be open to the producers of all farm products on a voluntary basis with assurance that the government provide a public forum for full discussion with the farm community before reintroduction of the bill.

The first question which must be decided is, shall the bill be now read a second time?

All those in favour of Bill 96 being now read a second time will please say “aye.”

Those opposed will please say “nay.” In my opinion, the “nays” have it.

[10:45]

The House divided on the motion by Hon. W. Newman for second reading of Bill 96, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Nays

Auld Belanger Bennett Bernier Birch Brunelle Davis Drea Eaton Evans Gregory Grossman Handleman Henderson Hodgson Irvine Johnson (Wellington-Dufferin-Peel) Johnston (St. Catharines) Jones Kennedy Kerr Lane Leluk MacBeth Maeck McCague McKeough McMurtry Meen Miller (Muskoka) Morrow Newman (Durham York) Norton Parrott Rhodes Scrivener Snow Stephenson Taylor Timbrell Villeneuve Welch Wells Williams Wiseman -- 45.

Angus Bain Bounsall Breithaupt Bryden Bullbrook Burr Campbell Cassidy Conway Cunningham Davidson (Cambridge) Davison (Hamilton Centre) Deans Di Santo Dukszta Eakins Edighoffer Ferrier Ferris Foulds Gaunt Germa Gigantes Givens Godfrey Grande Haggerty Hall Kerrio Laughren Lawlor Lewis Lupusella MacDonald Mackenzie Makarchuk Mancini Martel McClellan McKessock Miller (Haldimand-Norfolk) Moffatt Newman (Windsor-Walkerville) Nixon O’Neil Peterson Philip Reed (Halton-Burlington) Reid (Rainy River) Renwick Riddell Roy Ruston Sandeman Singer Smith (Nipissing) Smith (Hamilton West) Spence Stong Swart Warner Wildman Worton Young Ziemba -- 66.

Clerk of the House: Mr. Speaker, the “ayes” are 45, the “nays” are 66.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Let’s get on with the business of the House. I declare the motion lost.

The question which must now be put, is whether the bill be referred back to the government to have incorporated therein the principles of a farm income insurance plan which will be open to the producers of all farm products on a voluntary basis, with assurance that the government provide a public forum for full discussion with the community before re-introduction of the bill.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to rule 46(b) of the standing orders, and for reasons which have been clearly outlined by myself and my caucus colleagues, I have a motion at this time.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Riddell moves that the reasoned amendment be further amended by substituting the word “protection” for the word “insurance” in the fourth line, and the following words be added after the word “voluntary” in the fifth line: “and contributory basis with the government negotiating with legally constituted farm spokesmen”; and the following words be added after the word “bill” in line seven: “that the bill be re-introduced no later than Oct. 31, 1976.”

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, with that, the reasoned amendment, as amended, will read as follows:

“That Bill 96, An Act respecting farm income stabilization, be not now read a second time but be referred back to the government to have incorporated therein principles of a farm income protection plan which will be open to the producers of all farm products on a voluntary and contributory basis, with the government negotiating with legally constituted farm spokesmen; and with assurance that the government provide a public forum for full discussion with the farm community before re-introduction of the bill; and that the bill be re-introduced no later than Oct 31, 1976.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We’ll vote first of all on the --

Mr. Lewis: No, no, just a second; there is a sub-amendment.

Mr. Speaker: That’s right.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I’d just like to make a brief comment. We have no difficulty in this party in accepting the sub-amendment. The first two sections of it are different wordings that reflect exactly meaning that we had in mind, and if it wasn’t clear in the words in the amendment, it was certainly clear in what we said this afternoon.

The third amendment is a substantive change and we have no objection to it. It puts a deadline by which this government has to respond to the House, and I trust they will do so. In fact so much do we agree with the amendment we’d be glad to incorporate it and vote on it in the amended form.

Mr. Speaker: Do other hon. members wish to speak to this sub-amendment?

Mr. Singer: Why doesn’t the Minister of Agriculture and Food make it unanimous?

An hon. member: Come on.

An hon. member: Make it unanimous.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. S. Smith: Make minority government work.

Mr. Speaker: I thought the debate was over.

Mr. Lewis: This is a pretty exciting moment; give us a bit of leeway.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Those in favour of Mr. Riddell’s amendment to the O’Neil amendment will please say “aye.”

Those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “ayes” have it.

Mr. Lewis: No, we want the whole recorded vote; this will not happen again.

The House divided on Mr. Riddell’s amendment to the amendment, which was approved on the following vote:

Ayes

Nays

Angus Bain Bounsall Breithaupt Bryden Bullbrook Burr Campbell Cassidy Conway Cunningham Davidson (Cambridge) Davison (Hamilton Centre) Deans Di Santo Dukszta Eakins Edighoffer Ferrier Ferris Foulds Gaunt Germa Gigantes Givens Godfrey Grande Haggerty Hall Kerrio Laughren Lawlor Lewis Lupusella MacDonald Mackenzie Makarchuk Mancini Martel McClellan McKessock Miller (Haldimand-Norfolk) Moffatt Newman (Windsor-Walkerville) Nixon O’Neil Peterson Philip Reed (Halton-Burlington) Reid (Rainy River) Renwick Riddell Roy Ruston Sandeman Singer Smith (Nipissing) Smith (Hamilton West) Spence Stong Swart Warner Wildman Worton Young Ziemba -- 66.

Auld Belanger Bennett Bernier Birch Brunelle Davis Drea Eaton Evans Gregory Grossman Handleman Henderson Hodgson Irvine Johnson (Wellington-Dufferin-Peel) Johnston (St. Catharines) Jones Kennedy Kerr Lane Leluk MacBeth Maeck McCague McKeough McMurtry Meen Miller (Muskoka) Morrow Newman (Durham York) Norton Parrott Rhodes Scrivener Snow Stephenson Taylor Timbrell Villeneuve Welch Wells Williams Wiseman -- 45.

Clerk of the House: The “ayes” are 66, and the “nays” are 45.

Mr. Speaker: I declare the subamendment to the amendment carried.

We will now put the main amendment, as moved by Mr. MacDonald, as amended by Mr. Riddell.

Those in favour of the amendment as amended will please say “aye.”

Those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “ayes” have it.

Mr. Lewis: No, we want the vote recorded.

Mr. Speaker: May we have the same vote as before?

Mr. Lewis: We want this in Hansard.

[11:00]

Mr. Speaker: All right, we will place the question, then.

The House divided on the amendment as amended, which was approved on following vote:

Ayes

Nays

Angus Bain Bounsall Breithaupt Bryden Bullbrook Burr Campbell Cassidy Conway Cunningham Davidson (Cambridge) Davison (Hamilton Centre) Deans Di Santo Dukszta Eakins Edighoffer Ferrier Ferris Foulds Gaunt Germa Gigantes Givens Godfrey Grande Haggerty Hall Kerrio Laughren Lawlor Lewis Lupusella MacDonald Mackenzie Makarchuk Mancini Martel McClellan McKessock Miller (Haldimand-Norfolk) Moffatt Newman (Windsor-Walkerville) Nixon O’Neil Peterson Philip Reed (Halton-Burlington) Reid (Rainy River) Renwick Riddell Roy Ruston Sandeman Singer Smith (Nipissing) Smith (Hamilton West) Spence Stong Swart Warner Wildman Worton Young Ziemba -- 66.

Auld Belanger Bennett Bernier Birch Brunelle Davis Drea Eaton Evans Gregory Grossman Handleman Henderson Hodgson Irvine Johnson (Wellington-Dufferin-Peel) Johnston (St. Catharines) Jones Kennedy Kerr Lane Leluk MacBeth Maeck McCague McKeough McMurtry Meen Miller (Muskoka) Morrow Newman (Durham York) Norton Parrott Rhodes Scrivener Snow Stephenson Taylor Timbrell Villeneuve Welch Wells Williams Wiseman -- 45.

Clerk of the House: Mr. Speaker, the “ayes” are 66, the “nays” are 45.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I declare the amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Is there an announcement from the House leader?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I know there are other matters to be discussed before adjournment. June 15, 1976, will no doubt be a matter of some interest for historians some time from now. Therefore, tomorrow we will take into consideration government notice of motion No. 4 standing in the name of the Premier (Mr. Davis), and tomorrow evening -- of course, it’s conditional on the outcome of the vote at 5:50 tomorrow -- we will then go to legislation.

Mr. Lewis: Could be the same vote.

Mr. Martel: Then go to an election.

Mr. Lewis: Certainly this House has no confidence in the government tonight.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. As announced earlier this afternoon, the member for Windsor-Riverside had given notice that he was dissatisfied with the answer given by the Minister of Agriculture and Food on June 10 concerning the effect of fluorescent light on milk products.

I now deem a motion to adjourn the House to have been placed and I’ll call on the member for Windsor-Riverside who, in five minutes, may outline his position.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I’m sure my colleague would wish to go ahead, but the government having lost the confidence of the House I’m not sure that intervening business should proceed. But I take it you would permit the late show.

Mr. Speaker: I’ve already called the late show because the Speaker deems a motion to adjourn to have been carried with no other intervening business. I have called on the member for Windsor-Riverside.

EFFECT OF FLUORESCENT LIGHTING ON FOOD

Mr. Burr: Mr. Speaker, on Dec. 17, 1915, various newspapers, including the Toronto Star and the Globe and Mail, carried news stories revealing that University of Guelph researchers in the food science department had some disturbing news. The researchers reported that fluorescent lighting in supermarket displays detracts both from the flavour and from the nutritional value of milk, butter, cheese, cooking oil and related products.

After three hours of exposure to direct fluorescent lighting, the flavour of milk changes, if it is contained in clear pouches or in plastic jugs, when subjected to a light intensity of 200 feet-candles. Dr. de Mann is convinced that much resistance to the drinking of milk originates when people get this off-flavoured milk.

About 90 per cent of the vitamin C or ascorbic acid content is lost after 24 hours’ exposure if milk is stored in clear pouches or in plastic jugs. About 33 per cent is lost if milk is contained in standard cardboard containers. Only about 20 per cent is lost if an opaque pouch is used. The opaque plastic pouch has an outer white layer and an inner black pigmented layer.

Vitamin B losses are less severe than those of ascorbic acid, but after 24 hours’ exposure, at 200 foot-candles, almost 30 per cent of the vitamin B is lost from milk in a clear pouch and the opaque pouch permits virtually no loss. There is a loss of about 10 per cent of vitamin B from cartons and plastic jugs. In view of the results of the federal government’s recent nutritional survey, this nutritional loss to the people of the province, especially to children, should be a matter of great concern to this government.

Unfortunately, the whole government has shown almost no concern. I raised this question first on March 16, asking what the Minister of Agriculture and Food was doing to insist upon light-protective packaging for these food products. On April 5, April 9 and May 4, I asked various ministers without much success. On June 4 and June 8, I appealed to the Premier. Eventually, on June 10, the Minister of Agriculture and Food gave a four-page statement which told me nothing I did not already know. As far as government action on this problem is concerned, his answer was, in effect, that:

“The concerned consumer who wants maximum nutritional value would be well advised to buy fresh milk which is displayed in a cold and dark storage area.”

Doesn’t the minister realize that there may be many concerned consumers who don’t know that Ontario’s Minister of Agriculture and Food actually allows milk, butter, etc., to be sold in inadequate packages. I should be surprised if 10 per cent of shoppers have any idea that fluorescent lighting can have a harmful effect on dairy products. Even the Premier tells us that he buys his milk in three-quart plastic jugs, despite the fact that plastic jugs are the worst possible packaging for milk, according to Dr. John de Mann, who has been doing research for the government on this for at least three years.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Are you against returnable jugs?

Mr. Burr: If the Premier, who has sat in this House and heard me raise the matter on several occasions, chooses the worst possible packaging from a nutritional standpoint, how can the Minister of Agriculture and Food slough off this matter by saying -- and I quote again:

“The concerned consumer who wants maximum nutritional value would be well advised to buy fresh milk which is displayed in a cold and dark storage area.”

The minister, in his June 10 answer, admitted that:

“there is adequate technology now available to prevent any impairment of milk quality from exposure to light.”

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Burr: His own ministry funded the study proving this, which was published in 1973 --

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Burr: Why has he done nothing to introduce this technology? His ministry has known for three years that opaque plastic pouches and black cardboard cartons can deliver milk to consumers --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Thank you.

Mr. Burr: -- with virtually no loss of flavour and virtually no loss of nutritional value.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. W. Newman) has had a long and busy day, he has asked me to make a few remarks regarding the hon. member’s motion this evening. First of all, I want to say that I don’t feel that there is any reason for the hon. member for Windsor-Riverside to exercise the rules of this House. I feel that his question was adequately answered by the hon. Minister of Agriculture and Food last week. He should have been completely satisfied with it. However, I will just comment on a couple of points.

First of all, we have indicated that there is a problem when milk is displayed in a certain way in certain stores; if there is fluorescent lighting in a container whereby all types of milk is stored, there could be loss of nutritional value and it might develop some type of an “off” flavour. But I think that it is important to realize that not all milk is bought in stores; some of it is delivered to the home.

At this point I would like to take issue with the hon. member in respect to his reference to the three-quart returnable jug. I still feel that the three-quart jug is a preferable method of the sale of milk, particularly from the point of view that most milk, as the hon. member knows, is sold by way of door-to-door delivery in the various communities in this province and therefore is not subject to the problem of fluorescent lighting. I am also of course, referring to the whole matter of recycling three-quart jugs, which is an important part of the sale and distribution of milk to the various homes in the province.

Now what does the hon. member suggest? Does the hon. member suggest that we should have an army of inspectors to go around to the various grocery stores and tell the store owners that their milk is not displayed in a proper manner? Should we recommend specific type of packaging?

Mr. Burr: Right, now the minister has got it.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Now, all right. Is there any particular reason why we couldn’t paint those three-quart jugs black? Would that satisfy the hon. member?

Mr. Burr: Fine, great.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: All right. As the hon. member probably realizes, the milk producers just a few years ago attempted this because of criticism in respect to fluorescent lighting and the loss of nutritional value in milk. The milk just didn’t sell. The three-quart black plastic jug was not attractive. It didn’t sell. One milk producer vent broke; he went bankrupt. So we have to leave something up to consumer choice. I think there is a duty on the government, on the milk board, on the Minister of Agriculture and Food, to point out the things that the hon. member has pointed out --

Mr. Burr: Right.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: -- and we confirmed those in our answer, so that the consumer can be educated to purchase milk in safe packaging to make sure that he has the best quality of milk. But I don’t think that we should dictate the type of packaging, because if we do that we are going to defeat my objective to promote the three-quart jug for one thing, and we don’t want to do that. The other thing is there should be some consumer choice.

As the member knows, the best and probably safest and most convenient packaging really in many respects is the old milk bottle, but people don’t buy milk in bottles these days. We could paint that bottle black and we wouldn’t lose any nutrition but, again, a black milk bottle wouldn’t sell -- take it from me. I used to run a Freshie stand and I went broke because the Freshie was in a black jug.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Durham East indicated his displeasure with the answer to a question about the Oshawa Second Marsh and Darlington Provincial Park as given by the Minister of Natural Resources and I will call on the member for Durham East for five minutes.

Mr. Moffatt: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don’t know what to say after the last show, but I have some very grave concerns with regard --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Would you make it three minutes?

Mr. Moffatt: I will try, okay? If the minister will give me the right answers, I will be glad to.

ACCESS TO OSHAWA MARSH

Mr. Moffatt: The question I asked the minister the last day arose out of a phone call I received from a person who had attended the Federation of Ontario Naturalists convention the previous weekend. He was most concerned because there was a report at that particular convention that the government had decided to, in consultation with a few people, approve a rezoning to the Beaton farm in the Oshawa area which would impinge seriously on the future of the Second Marsh.

My reason for being so concerned? I am sure that those members who have driven east on Highway 401 past Oshawa have noticed on the lakeshore the particularly scenic and picturesque area which I am talking about; two bays separated by a particularly attractive farm. What this particular move would do would be to make that farm into some sort of chemical industrial park, because we are not really sure what is going to happen there. I don’t see how this can happen, in the light of the previous commitments which the minister and the government have given in response to a number of questions that they will protect the integrity of the Second Marsh at Oshawa at all costs and because of a previous commitment which they had given which would expand the Darlington Provincial Park. The only place they can expand the Darlington Provincial Park is westward into what is known as the Beaton Farm.

[11:15]

If the government is not prepared to do that, I would ask the minister to read from this particular report, the Ontario Provincial Parks Council, 1975, first annual report, which says in regard to the need for new urban provincial parks:

(a) Frequently there is insufficient parkland of any type near urban areas.

(b) Land that is close to urban areas is expensive which often make it difficult for a local municipality to acquire quality areas of large size.

(c) Many disadvantaged urban residents have little opportunity to go into provincial parks.

There are five specific reasons given in this report to the minister which clearly demonstrate the need for this kind of facility in such an urban area.

Given the comments of the Treasurer in the Durham sub-region report which has been published all over the province and tabled in this House, which sees the population in the Oshawa area going to 450,000 in the next 10 years, where, I ask the minister, will we have the kind of park facilities that is called for in this report? I’m not saying that the minister should immediately call a halt to everything that is going on. What he can do, if he will continue this discussion, is two or three things.

If the ministry is going to do anything with the Beaton farm, other than add it to the Darlington Provincial Park, then, for heaven’s sake, leave it as a farm. I ask the minister specifically to assure us that Second Marsh will be protected from all encroachment. In the case of the particular chemical company which is rumoured to be investigating potential sites in the Durham region, there are numerous areas which could be used for this type of firm which would add to the credibility of the reports that the government has been giving out about regional governments and would, in fact, help the industrial assessment base in that area which the government has a commitment to undertake. All I’m saying is that to choose that particularly inappropriate site at this time is all wrong. I see no reason at all why the minister cannot give some assurance now that that will not happen.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, if I may elaborate further on the hon. member’s question asked of me this afternoon, I think that the easiest and the most forward way to place our position on the record is to go through the various stages of development and the various stages of the events that have occurred since the summer of 1973.

At that time, there was an agreement to extend the Darlington Provincial Park to portions including the Beaton farm and the Second Marsh. During 1974-1975, negotiations for acquisition of the Beaton farm broke off because of budget constraints and withdrawal of the provincial parks acquisition fund. On June 27, 1975, the Minister of Housing partially approved the new Oshawa official plan. He referred certain parts of that plan to the OMB, specifically the Second Marsh property of the Oshawa Harbour Commission and the Beaton farm property.

The Ministry of Natural Resources will make representations to the OMB that the Second Marsh be designated as conservation land -- I believe that’s what the hon. member would like to hear -- as well as that portion of the Beaton farm adjacent to the Second Marsh, Darlington Provincial Park, and the fronting of Lake Ontario and McLaughlin Bay. Our present interest is in designating or acquiring that part of the Beaton farm property necessary to maintain the integrity of the Darlington Provincial Park and the Second Marsh.

Our aim is also to acquire the Second Marsh or to attempt to ensure its designation as conservation land. The owners, the Oshawa Harbour Commission, however, appear to be intent on creating a new harbour in the marsh. We believe this is unnecessary and, if any expansion of harbour facilities is required, it can be better achieved by creating an outer harbour for which we have already provided, or will provide, the necessary water lots. I believe that, once the member has an opportunity to review those comments in Hansard, he will satisfy himself of the direction we’re going.

Mr. Speaker: I will call on the hon. member for Grey who wishes to debate a matter of the answer as given by the Minister of Labour.

CLOSURE OF ARENAS

Mr. McKessock: Mr. Speaker, I know I have only five minutes, so I won’t waste any time in letting you know that I think closing of some of the 66 arenas throughout Ontario is a mistake by the Ministry of Labour.

I personally inspected an arena myself on Friday, June 11, after many concerned people had contacted me and forwarded me their engineer’s report. I found the arena in excellent shape. I wish the building was sitting on my farm. I would feel confident that I would have a building that would be in good shape for at least another 20 years.

In the engineer’s report, it mentioned that posts had shifted outward on the cement abutments in some places, the maximum being 1½ ins. This was found to be true, but anybody who has worked with wooden structures in the last 100 years knows this is a natural event. A little settling and shifting of a wooden structure is common and does nothing to make the building any less capable of withstanding the natural elements of nature.

Mr. Ruston: My house moves every spring.

Mr. McKessock: I have worked around large buildings all my life and I have even built a few. My experience and deliberations have not been with a computer, which the engineering firm uses to help them decide if a building is sound.

The engineers may be right in condemning the arenas under the new building code standards. If so, the standards are not right for our area, and I criticize the engineering firms for not suggesting in their report that the standards may well be too rigid for this area.

Would the minister agree that there was no other position for the engineering firms to take to protect themselves sufficiently? This way they are safe, no matter what the condition of the arena.

The building standards must be based on the wind and snow load in the area over the last number of years, with a certain amount added for a safety factor. If the minister wants to create a new building code with a greater safety factor for new structures being built, that would be fine with me. But why condemn an arena that has proved itself over a number of years as being structurally sound? If the arena shows visual signs of rot or some other deterioration, okay; but a lot of these arenas do not show this, they are sound. I would be willing to live in some of these arenas for the next 20 years and feel perfectly safe.

Would the minister agree to have yearly inspections for two years and keep a record of the extent of further deterioration, if any? The minister may find at the end of two years that inspections could be carried out every other year, if deterioration is minimal.

This once-in-a-lifetime inspection that has just been completed seems ridiculous. Nobody knows whether any deterioration found occurred the first year after construction or last year. Any shift or settling could well have taken place in the first two or three years after construction. Any further movement in the building is highly unlikely. Yearly inspections would determine this.

For an arena to be standing sound, and doing a good job, and then have an engineering firm move in and condemn it on one inspection lacks wisdom and common sense. Several inspections should be done and records kept at yearly intervals to establish whether the building is deteriorating further, and how much. Let us leave these arenas open, check them again next year and compare inspections.

One of the first questions the minister will ask me is would I be willing to be held responsible if we leave the arenas open and something happens. My answer is, yes; I would be for the arenas in my area, for a three-year period until a routine inspection process was established by her ministry and was in full operation.

A new building code does not make an old building unsafe. A new building built under the new code might be stronger, but not necessarily any better. Safe is safe; if our winters and hurricanes were increasing or becoming more destructive, the minister might have a leg to stand on, but they are not.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. McKessock: Has the minister inspected any of these arenas herself? How can she close these arenas without a personal inspection of them when there is so much doubt?

I extend to the minister a personal invitation to come with me to inspect some of these arenas as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. minister.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I have never heard such a cavalier attitude toward public safety in all my life. These arenas have in fact been inspected by qualified engineers at the request of the municipalities. --

Mr. McKessock: At the request of the municipalities?

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- because the Ministry of Labour in conjunction with the expert in building and the National Association of Professional Engineers, decided in 1970 and 1971 that this kind of programme was necessary as a result of five collapses of arenas, two with loss of life.

If the hon. member wants to take full responsibility for the lives of the children and the adults in his area, who might use this arena that he deems to be safe, then by all means let him take the responsibility. The Ministry of Labour and the government of the Province of Ontario has much more concern about the safety of the people of this province than apparently the member has.

This programme, as I said, was established more than five years ago. We have requested of all the municipalities on a yearly basis --

Mr. McKessock: At the request of the municipalities.

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- that they engage an engineering firm to inspect these buildings to ensure their safety.

The municipalities were reluctant to comply with our request, in spite of repeated urgings. I have stated in the House that it was at the suggestion of the PMLC that I sent the letters to the municipalities in December, because the municipalities themselves felt that this programme had to be advanced much more rapidly than it had in the past.

Some of the municipalities in this province, I would like the members to know, responded earlier to our requests. They did have their arenas inspected. They did, in fast, improve those arenas and they are now safe to be used.

We have not closed 66 -- we have closed 57 at the moment. Some of those will, in fact, be fit to be reopened in October if they are properly structurally supported during the summer months.

But there are some which are going to have to be demolished, because they simply cannot withstand the stress of the deadweight, the snow load and the wind factors which they must meet.

These are not new factors and not new stresses. These are conditions which were established in 1971, and we have been trying for the last five years to persuade those people who should be responsible for the safety of the people in their area to assume this responsibility.

If they don’t want to assume it, this government will assume it, and we will make sure that unsafe arenas are closed. I really cannot understand the mentality which would permit anyone to say that we should put off for three or five years ensuring the safety of arenas in this province in making sure that the children of this province are safe.

Mr. McKessock: Thanks for the use of them for the last five years.

Mr. Speaker: I deem the motion to adjourn to have been carried.

The House adjourned at 11:30 p.m.