Hansard Transcripts 1982-Dec-02 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

M. le Président, le ministre de l'Education a fait cette semaine une annonce tout à fait particulière sur la réforme de l'éducation secondaire. Lors d'une conférence de presse ici à Queen's Park, au cours de laquelle elle présentait cette réforme, elle a précisé qu'il serait dorénavant nécessaire d'avoir cinq crédits en anglais et un en français pour obtenir un diplôme donné.

Plus tard au cours de la conférence, elle a demandé à l'un des agents du ministère, Monsieur Jack Bell, de donner des détails plus concrets aux journalistes. Ce Monsieur Bell a donné les explications voulues et on lui a alors demandé les raisons de cette politique. D'après lui -- et j'ai vérifié le contenu de sa réponse -- s'il est nécessaire d'obtenir cinq crédits en anglais et un seul en français pour avoir un diplôme, c'est que le français est une langue ethnique, "comme le chinois," a commenté M. Bell.

Je ne veux en aucune façon critiquer mes amis parlant le chinois ou rabaisser cette langue ethnique sûrement importante dans certains secteurs du globe. Je trouve cependant malheureux qu'un agent, occupant apparemment un poste important au ministère, appelle "ethnique" une des langues officielles du pays et la compare au chinois.

Je trouve que l'utilisation de cette comparaison pour la langue française constitue non seulement une insulte, mais un manque de savoir-faire de la part du ministère. Je crois que le ministre devrait s'excuser ou qu'un membre de la communauté franco-ontarienne devrait demander des excuses au ministre.

Earlier this week, the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) announced new policies regarding secondary education. One of the policies she announced was the requirement of mandatory credits, apparently five mandatory credits in English and one in French, to obtain a diploma. Following the press conference, the minister asked an official, Jack Bell, to give an explanation to the waiting members of the press. During the conference, Mr. Bell explained the necessity for this new policy by saying, "The requirement for only one credit in French is because French is an ethnic language, just like Chinese."

It is unfortunate that a senior member of the ministry should take the position that one of our official languages should be considered as only an ethnic language. It is also unfortunate that he would have no more knowledge of the ministry than to compare one of the official languages, to which this Legislature and this province has given a very particular status, to a language such as Chinese. I do not want in any way to denigrate my Chinese friends, since Chinese is a very important language in certain sectors of this universe, but in Canada, there is special status for two official languages. The Franco-Ontarian community deserves an explanation and an apology from the minister.

Mr. Speaker: As the member for Ottawa East must know, that is not a point of privilege. His privileges have not been abused in any way, shape or form. Is there a response from the Minister of Education?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I did not make the request of Mr. Bell. There was some confusion at the time of the press conference, and I am aware that certain reporters spoke to Mr. Bell. The confusion was not allayed until after the press conference, when I submitted that our concern was to find a mechanism based upon equitability of language requirement for both francophone and anglophone students, and that I was prepared to hear from the francophone communities what they considered to be most appropriate.

The honourable member may be interested to know we had a meeting on the following day with representatives from all the francophone communities to try to establish some of the mechanisms whereby this could be accomplished. It is unfortunate that any such statement was made, because that is certainly not the attitude of the Ministry of Education or of this government.

Although it has been the purpose of certain members of the third party to attempt to move all languages into the language of instruction situation, it is certainly not the purpose of the government of Ontario to do anything to diminish the status of French-language education in this province. It was an unfortunate example to use. I would like the members to know that there was no request made by me to Mr. Bell to speak with the press. That request was made by the press to Mr. Bell.

LEAD ASSESSMENTS

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of privilege. On Monday last, I received a report prepared by Dr. Ann Robinson and submitted by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) to me concerning Westinghouse. The health and safety committee of the union approached me, and I raised this matter in the Legislature on several occasions. I have difficulty in being able to assist that union when the report I received and the material contained therein not only is misleading, but is factually incorrect.

I would like to indicate why I feel I cannot assist the health and safety committee. The following statement is contained in this report:

2:10 p.m.

"Air sampling for lead" -- and this is a very toxic substance -- "was carried out while grey paint was in use on September 23 in department 951 in fulfilment of a commitment made to the union representative. Results showed the value to be below the threshold limit value." Grey paint is the paint with the lowest lead content of all and the one not used very frequently at Westinghouse.

Let me continue: "It is to be noted that the company results for sampling on April 14 in department 951--"

Mr. Speaker: I call the honourable member to order. It is not a point of privilege that you are presenting, and it may better be pursued during oral question time with the minister in question. Your privileges have not been offended in any way.

Mr. Martel: Mr Speaker, possibly you could assist me. In this material that I propose to give to you --

Mr. Speaker: Well --

Mr. Martel: Let me finish.

Mr. Speaker: All right.

Mr. Martel: I would like you to hear me out. When the tests that are now available show lead being used to a level 16 or 20 times higher than the threshold limit and this report says they are not in --

Mr. Speaker: I call the member to order; order, please. Resume your seat, please. You are asking me or appealing to me to make a judgement on a report that obviously I have not seen and know nothing about, and I just do not have that responsibility in this chamber.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, if I might--

Mr. Speaker: No.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker. you will recall that two weeks ago I raised the matter, on a point of order in the House, of questions not being answered that were given orally, and now we are getting written answers and the answers are never made --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. That has nothing to do with me, as you well know.

Mr. Martel: But you just said you did not know the content of the report.

Mr. Speaker: That is right.

Mr. Martel: Then he should have answered orally when it was --

Mr. Speaker: Just resume your seat. It is really no responsibility of mine at all.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: No. Member for Sudbury East,

resume your seat, please.

DISTRIBUTION OF HATE LITERATURE

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw to your attention a pamphlet that has been, I believe, sent to every member of this Legislature. It is entitled, Separate Schools and Your Tax $$$.

My privileges as a member of this Legislature have certainly been violated. This is the closest thing I have ever had delivered to my office that could be called hate literature. This kind of bigoted garbage, surely, I would have thought, would no longer be tolerated in Ontario.

I do not know whether you can act or whether it is the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) who should act, but someone should.

Mr. Speaker: I will have to call --

Mr. Sweeney: The distribution of this, which vilifies separate schools in Ontario --

Mr. Speaker: I will have to call the honourable member to order.

Mr. Sweeney: Something must be done about it.

Mr. Speaker: I tend to agree with your observations, and I am already taking a look into it as a private member.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

SCHOOL YEAR POLICY

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to announce that cabinet has approved a revised school year and school holidays policy for Ontario effective September 1, 1983.

In 1981, a committee was established within the Ministry of Education to plan and to carry out a comprehensive review of the current regulation on the school year and school holidays, which has been in force since the beginning of the 1973-74 school year.

The data-gathering process employed by the committee included: (1) the use of a questionnaire that was distributed to over 10,000 members of the education community; (2) public hearings right across the province; and (3) meetings with the Ontario School Trustees' Council, the affiliates of the Ontario Teachers' Federation and the supervisory officers organizations.

Following the initial data-gathering phase, an interim report was distributed widely by the ministry with a second invitation for comments and reactions. The revised policy, which I am announcing today, was established, therefore, following a very extensive consultative exercise.

You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that on November 22 I was asked by the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché) to provide assurance that in the future, schools will mark Remembrance Day on November 11.

The new school year policy provides that assurance and responds positively to the recommendation made by the Royal Canadian Legion.

The revised policy removes Remembrance Day from the list of school holidays and requires that a Remembrance Day service be conducted on that day in every school unless the school participates in a service at a cenotaph. If November 11 falls on a Saturday or Sunday, then a service in schools is to be conducted on the Friday preceding Remembrance Day.

The school year will consist of 194 school days. will commence on or after September 1 and will conclude on or before June 30. Within this school year there will continue to be no fewer than 185 instructional days.

Boards will be required to publish their school calendars at the beginning of each school year for the information of pupils and their parents.

Other significant changes relate to holidays, professional activity days and examination days.

The midwinter break will commence one week earlier, that is, on the Monday following the Friday preceding March 14 rather than on the Monday following the Friday preceding March 21.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Or something like that.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Welch: If you cannot figure that out you should not be in the school system.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Right.

The options of designating any five consecutive school days for the midwinter break between the first school day in January and the last school day in June, and of designating another day as a holiday in lieu of Easter Monday, have been removed.

The Christmas vacation will be two full weeks, but boards will be able to opt for a Christmas vacation that varies in length from year to year, as at present, with notice.

Up to nine school days may be designated as professional activity days, a significant number of which must be devoted to curriculum development, curriculum implementation and review. In addition, boards will be required to undertake annual evaluations of the activities conducted on those days.

Up to 15 instructional days may be used in each year as examination days. Where a school has a policy of granting exemptions to pupils from writing final examinations, such exemptions may be granted only from the final examination in a course and only where a pupil has already written at least one other examination in that course.

Teachers will be required to be in the schools on examination days and to be available to pupils during regular school hours unless a board directs otherwise.

These are the major changes involved. It is my intention to send, in the course of the next few days, a memorandum to all school boards indicating each of the changes in detail. It is anticipated that the new regulation will be gazetted about the end of December.

CLOSURE OF AUDIO LIBRARY

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, in line with my recent comments in the House, I want to reassure the honourable members that the audio services provided to visually handicapped people by the Trent audio library up to this time will continue.

The government has a commitment to assist disabled persons, including those who are visually handicapped. Appropriate mechanisms will be put in place to support services such as those provided, for example, by the Trent audio library. We are continuing to explore all options in order to determine the best ways to do this.

In the meantime, let me assure all members and the post-secondary students who use this service that the government will ensure continuity of service to them.

2:20 p.m.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. They just cannot wait to place their questions. Whenever you are ready.

Mr. Foulds: We'll give you a ministerial statement if you want.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Do you want us to go first over here?

Mr. Speaker: You are coming perilously close to not being here at all.

BRUCE ENERGY CENTRE

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, later this afternoon I will introduce a bill to amend the Power Corporation Act, which will enable Ontario Hydro to develop the Bruce Energy Centre.

In July, I made public a draft version of this bill in order to encourage discussion and consultation on the proposals. I am pleased to report that several interested parties have expressed their views to me on this subject, and the legislation which I will introduce this afternoon reflects this public consultation and informed opinion.

The legislation will permit Ontario Hydro to purchase and develop the land and facilities required for the Bruce Energy Centre, which will use heat energy from the Bruce nuclear power development to serve the combined agricultural, commercial, aquacultural and industrial development there.

This legislation represents a very important step forward in the development of this pioneering venture to make the best use of Ontario's energy resources, and I feel confident that the benefits of the development will be of great value to the people of Bruce county and of the province.

ORAL QUESTIONS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, before oral questions, may I note that the Premier (Mr. Davis) has not been here for question period this week.

Mr. Speaker: Is that your question?

Mr. Peterson: I have a request of you, sir. I wonder if you would take it upon yourself to convey to him the new education policy for this province, because he may have missed it.

Mr. Speaker: No. We are in oral questions.

Mr. Peterson: It may have been done in his absence.

SEAWAY TRUST

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. The question concerns a property in London, Ontario, the London armoury at 77 Dundas Street, and Seaway Trust Co.

On February 6, 1980, the armoury was sold to a local group for some $700,000, subject to a $500,000 mortgage to Canada Trust Co. which has not been discharged. On June 12, 1981, that building, the armoury was sold to one William C. Player, in trust, for $1.25 million, cash of $750,000. On October 21, 1981, Mr. Player, as trustee, mortgaged that building to Seaway Trust Co. for $1.5 million at a rate of 19.5 per cent due May 1, 1982, which has not been discharged.

I should point out that I am only going from the registered documents. That is all I know in the circumstances. On March 10 and March 12, 1982, Player, as trustee, mortgaged to Char Holdings Ltd., which assigned the mortgage to Seaway Trust Co. for $4.5 million at a rate of 15 per cent due March 10, 1983.

What we have in simple terms is a sale of a property that is valued, to be charitable, at $1.25 million now having mortgages on it to Seaway Trust of a total of $6.5 million. Could the minister tell me if he has investigated whether this is in violation of the Loan and Trust Corporations Act and whether his ministry has looked into it? Was he aware of it and what is he doing to protect the various people involved?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I can only reiterate that under the terms of reference and under section 152 of the Loan and Trust Corporations Act, the general conduct of business with respect to a number of trust companies and a mortgage company are being examined and reviewed and I would expect that will be one of the areas being examined.

Mr. Peterson: This particular transaction has nothing to do, as we can ascertain, with Cadillac Fairview or Greymac. Is the minister telling me now that he is widening the section 152 inquiry into a complete investigation of all of the transactions (of Seaway Trust? Because I remind him what he originally said was he was going to look into the financing of those subject buildings, the Cadillac Fairview to Greymac transaction, through the section 152 route. Is he going beyond that? Is that what he is announcing today, that he is going to be involved in looking at all the deals of Seaway Trust and everything they have been involved in for the past two or three years?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: If the member would read section 152 he would realize, I would hope, that it is not a question of adding here and there and now and then. I know he is trying to leave that implication, but the wording is very clear; it is to inquire generally into the conduct of the business.

Naturally, the first area of business they will he looking into will be the area with respect to the Cadillac Fairview transactions, but the terms of reference do not limit them to that area.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, to try to get at this question in a slightly different way, is the minister telling this Legislature that he is fully satisfied that the auditor, appointed under section 152, has sufficient powers to determine not only the conduct of the business of Seaway Trust, but the identity of the individuals who are behind the very substantial sums of money that are being invested by Seaway Trust? Is he really satisfied the auditor can get at the identity of all the individuals who are behind the money that is involved in these deals? Does he give that assurance to the Legislature? If so, how can he give us that assurance?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, as I have stated before, it is my belief that as the examiner looks into the nature of the transactions, that information will be part, by necessity, of the information they will be requiring. I have already indicated that in the particular situation with respect to Cadillac Fairview, I agree we must find out, and confirm, that there were Saudi investors and that there was a flow of money. We will be endeavouring to make certain that information is available.

Mr. Peterson: Am I right in saying, then, that the minister is telling us today in the House that Mr. Morrison will be looking into all deals, all financing, all mortgages held by Seaway Trust, Crown Trust and Greymac Trust? Are these now the formal terms of reference?

As a second part to my second supplementary, I ask the minister this: when the order in council was issued by cabinet on September 2, 1982, allowing Seaway Trust to raise the level of its authorized share capital from $35 million to $75 million, why did he not investigate these matters then?

I understand the registrar, under the act, made some representations to cabinet on behalf of Seaway Trust Co. This all must have come before the minister and his colleagues at that point. Will he table those documents in this House so that we can have a look at what he was given at that point and can see the basis on which he made his judgement?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: The superintendent of insurance, as the member well knows, has an obligation to supervise and to look into various aspects and to respond to certain requests. The superintendent of insurance reviewed the request that Seaway Trust's capital base be allowed to expand. He reviewed it and recommended to me that he thought it was in order. Let us not try to pretend there was anything strange about that.

Mr. Kerrio: C&M Financial has gone down in Niagara and the minister knows it. Why doesn't he do something about it?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Don't get silly, Vince; don't get silly.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Kerrio: Why doesn't the minister do something about it?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: That order in council was in response to an application and upon the recommendation of the registrar. It was after no consultation by me with anyone but the superintendent of insurance, and upon conferring with cabinet, that the order in council was presented.

ASTRA/RE-MOR

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. The minister is aware that he refused to make public, last week, the Ombudsman's interim report with respect to the Astra/Re-Mor matter, citing at the time, as I understand it, the Ombudsman Act, which prevented him from so doing.

In response to a motion from my colleague the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) requesting the tabling of that report, the minister said that we were trying to bypass the procedures of this Legislature established under the act. Following this gratuitous advice from the minister, the chairman of the committee ruled that our motion was out of order, saying, "There is no reason why lawyers or anyone else should receive this report."

2:30 p.m.

I am sure the minister is aware that yesterday in committee, during the estimates of the Ombudsman, the honourable gentleman refuted the minister's argument, saying it is within the discretion of the minister whether he wishes to release that interim report. Now that we have that obstacle dealt with and now that we all clearly understand the law, may I ask him to table that report immediately?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, my response is still exactly the same. Had the Leader of the Opposition served on the committee dealing with the Ombudsman's estimates, he would know a section 19(3) letter is a letter from the Ombudsman saying, in effect, it is open to him to conclude certain things. He has not made any definitive decision yet. He cannot release the document.

Surely the member has some appreciation of the fact that we are at the discussion stage in regard to these documents, and the final recommendation may or may not be the same as it is now. I do not intend to release a letter to me indicating that it is open to the Ombudsman to conclude certain things. I have no intention of tabling it.

Mr. Peterson: I remind the minister again, because he probably did not understand, that the Ombudsman said the minister could release that letter; he sees no legal impediment whatsoever. The minister is aware that document is not admissible in court as evidence. He is also aware that he has had that document some four or five months and has not replied to the Ombudsman. What is the minister doing? When is he going to respond? To whom?

Why is the minister taking so long with a matter that has been before this Legislature for so long and is causing so much anguish for so many people? Why does he not get the lead out and do something?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Listen, Roger Ramjet, you may be the last living American hero, but you are the only one who knows it.

Mr. Speaker, I tell the member, quite openly and frankly, we have been involved in discussions with the Ombudsman, and he reported that to the committee. He also reported to the committee that he expected a resolution within the next few weeks. That is exactly what I have told this House and what I will continue to tell the member opposite in this House.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, surely there is a question here that the minister has yet to answer; quite simply, it is this: since the Ombudsman has released the minister, set him free -- unfettered his discretion, as it were -- and said that he has no objection to this letter being released, as its release will cause no embarrassment whatsoever to the Ombudsman, can the minister tell us how we or any other observer can possibly avoid coming to the conclusion that the only people who will be embarrassed by the release of the letter are the minister and his colleagues in the Conservative government?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, there will be no hesitation in releasing the material when it is appropriate to do so. I know this is a new, little pond for the honourable member, but in this little pond he knows very well that the section 19 stage is a discussion and negotiation stage. He also knows very well that the Ombudsman pointed out to the committee yesterday that there might be some concerns about releasing it without any final decision on it having been made, knowing the case is before the court.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the minister brought that up, because I have yesterday's estimates as reported by Hansard. I said to the Ombudsman: "I want to be clear on this. In this case, you do not object to the minister himself, if he sees fit, releasing the contents of the letter from you to the minister with that recommendation in it." He did not.

I went on to ask: "How does your report affect court cases? Can your report be used in court cases?" The Honourable Mr. Morand replied: "It cannot be used in court cases. It is not admissible in evidence at all. There is a specific exclusion in the act."

In view of the fact that the Ombudsman has reported to the committee that this cannot be used in court cases, since it is forbidden by the act, why would the minister now hide behind the fact that there are some civil court cases going on in order not to reveal the contents of that report to this Legislature?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I am not hiding behind anything. I will release the appropriate information when it is past the section 19 stage.

FUNDING OF MINISTRY AGENCIES

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, my first question is to the Minister of Citizenship and Culture. I wonder whether the minister can confirm that a letter has gone to a number of cultural agencies, including the Ontario Arts Council, the Ontario Educational Communications Authority, the Royal Ontario Museum and others, over the signature of a Mr. B. F. Webber, who is the director of finance and administration in his ministry, indicating that in 1983-84 the ministry intends to allow a five per cent increase to cover salaries but intends to impose a 15 per cent cut on grants from his ministry to these funded agencies with respect to their operations.

Can he confirm the existence of such a letter and can he confirm that the impact on the Ontario Arts Council, for example, will be a net cut for 1983-84 of more than 13 per cent in its budget?

Hon. Mr. McCaffrey: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Webber did write a letter to each of the agencies of my ministry. I do not have the full letter here, but would be happy to bring it in and share it with the leader of the third party and all members of the Legislature.

There is no question that the figure 15 per cent was used in the letter. I do not want to get into an interpretative --

[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must caution whoever that is that there will be no demonstration and no participation. Otherwise, you will have to leave the gallery.

Hon. Mr. McCaffrey: I do not want to get into the business of interpreting a letter which nobody has in front of him at the moment --

[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will you please remove that person?

Ms. Copps: It's just a flat tire.

Mr. Speaker: It sounds like it. Sergeant at Arms, will you check and see if security is up there, please? I cannot see because of the lights.

Hon. Mr. McCaffrey: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, I do not want to get into the business of trying to interpret a letter none of us has in front of him at the moment, but I would be happy to do that.

It was clearly the intent in that communication that each of the agencies be asked what it would do, in a worst-scenario situation, to cope with a 15 per cent reduction. I do not want to quibble about whether Mr. Webber's letter could have been interpreted to say, "You are getting 15 per cent less," or whether it was as I phrased it. The way I phrased it is the way it was intended.

I think it is terribly important to recognize two things. Each agency of the ministry is fundamentally different from the others. Can I elaborate in this way? At the very least, the Royal Ontario Museum, the Art Gallery of Ontario and the Ontario Science Centre, for example, each has opportunities to speak to the revenue problem. It may be through admission. In some cases, it is as simple and straightforward as charging for parking, that being an opportunity for the Royal Botanical Gardens. In some instances, it is a question of perhaps charging a modest admission fee which was never in place before. I say again that some of those agencies have that kind of flexibility. The Ontario Arts Council has no such flexibility; no one recognizes that better than I do.

Here is what appears to be the anomaly: We have asked all of them, "In a worst-case scenario, how could you cope with 15 per cent?" Is the implication that each of the agencies will be cut back 15 per cent? The answer is no. Is the implication that each agency will be cut back the same amount? The answer is no, recognizing the differences, as I said, particularly in the case of the arts council.

It is absolutely essential that the leader of the third party and all the rest of us understand that agencies and ministries will share together in this restraint.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. Rae: In terms of sharing and this so-called restraint, what the ministry is clearly talking about, and I have not heard a denial from the minister, is a cutback in the amount of transfer payments and the amount of payments that are going to the Ontario Arts Council. What it is talking about, for example, if I understand the projections that were attached to the letter and have been discussed with members of the Ontario Arts Council, is a cutback of as much as $2 million.

Is the minister not aware of the direct relationship between these cutbacks and a dramatic increase in unemployment in the arts field? Is he not aware that this is the only implication of the cutbacks his ministry now is attempting to impose on the arts council and other agencies?

Hon. Mr. McCaffrey: If the arts council were to be cut back by 15 per cent, it would represent a loss to them of something on the order of $2 million over last year. I submit that if that happened, the results for the Ontario Arts Council's clients would be more severe than the horrible spectre of increased unemployment.

It is important for us to recognize that for some 19 years the Ontario Arts Council, with taxpayers' dollars, has played a very important role in identifying, fostering and supporting creative talent in a variety of disciplines in Ontario. To alter that would be more serious than any potential short-term unemployment: I believe that.

I say again that each of the agencies will have to share in this cutback; I cannot pretend otherwise. But I repeat that some agencies have a greater opportunity to cope, using other devices available to them, than does the Ontario Arts Council.

I cannot be more specific than that. I am not being coy. The arts council is going to be treated with the full delicacy and commitment that it requires.

Mr. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, the minister is still beating around the bush. We are asking him whether they are going to be cut back by 15 per cent. Surely he understands that many of these agencies have already had to cut back over the past two or three years because of increased costs and all these other costs. Are they going to be cut back by 15 per cent? If so, why?

Hon. Mr. McCaffrey: Mr. Speaker, let us take the mystery out of this. The budget for the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture for the next fiscal year has not been finalized. The budget for the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture for the next fiscal year will be reduced, as is the budget of virtually every ministry, to cope during this period of restraint.

Mr. Wildman: But yours more than others.

Hon. Mr. McCaffrey: As to whether the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture will be reduced more than others and whether the Ontario Arts Council will suffer as much as other agencies, the answers to those two questions have not yet been established.

Mr. Rae: I am not sure the minister has done very much to clear up the mystery. It seems to me the people whom the minister has to convince as to the worth of the Ontario Arts Council and the importance of culture and citizenship in the province are not on this side of the House; they are on that side of the House. That is where the minister has lost his battle.

Mr. Speaker: And now for the question.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rae: I ask the minister to pose this question in cabinet the next time he is there or the next time they are discussing the proposed $22-million cut in his budget: is the Ontario government saying that an unemployed actor is any less unemployed than an unemployed auto worker?

MIDLAND LANDFILL SITE

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, my second question is to the Minister of the Environment.

Mr. Gordon: I hope it is better than the last one.

Mr. Rae: People seem a little jumpy over there. I do not know what their problem is. The member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon) seems a little jumpy. I do not understand his difficulty.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rae: My question is to the Minister of Energy --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of the Environment.

Mr. Rae: The Minister of the Environment; excuse me. It concerns the Eric Pauzé landfill site in Midland. I am sure the minister is aware that a study by his own ministry indicated in February 1981 that the Eric Pauzé landfill site might pose some problems in view of the fact that it had been used for some 10 years as a dump site not only for municipal waste and garbage but also for industrial waste.

Why did it take his ministry from February 1981, when this landfill site was identified as a potential problem, until April 1982 before the ministry began to conduct surveys, studies and tests of potentially contaminated wells, many of them used for drinking water by private citizens in that area?

Why did it take his ministry more than a year before it began to carry out those studies? And why did it take the ministry more than three months before informing Mrs. Jean Therrien of the fact that her well was contaminated with a substance at a rate more than 10 times as great as the acceptable limit?

Why did it take the ministry that length of time to carry out the tests? And why did the ministry delay to such an extent before informing Mrs. Therrien of the health danger that she was running by drinking the water in the condition she was forced to drink it in?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the honourable member realizes that in a situation like this, when such information does come to our attention, that action invokes discussions with the municipality, which in this case had a very real interest in that site. There were a number of meetings with the municipality on the matter and testing was undertaken.

In terms of the delay the member cites with respect to notifying an individual, I point out that as far as the testing is concerned, it is not the sort of thing you can do in a day or two. In fact, the use of the mass spectrometer and the process that is required in those tests sometimes takes two or three weeks to complete. When the initial results are in, it is very often difficult to interpret the specific meaning because of the very close relationship between the atomic mass of some of these substances. As a consequence, corroborative testing is often necessary, as it was in this case.

As soon as that information was available, we did notify the residents whose wells appeared to have been impacted. There were three, I believe. A fourth person was advised that although that person's well does not appear at this point to have been impacted, it is in the vicinity that might suffer impact and, therefore, that person was advised to exercise caution.

Mr. Rae: On that point, the minister must know that the test results come from July 19, September 23, October 18 and November 4. There is really no significant variance in terms of the amounts that were actually found: 326 parts per billion of trichloroethylene found on July 19 and almost exactly the same result found on November 4. I hope the minister will agree that it would have been better if Mrs. Therrien had been informed right after July 19 of the risk she was running.

What concrete plans does the ministry now have to stop the chemical plume in its slide towards Georgian Bay? The minister will know the evidence suggests that it has already moved halfway from the site towards Georgian Bay. Do these concrete, specific plans include purge well pumping to stop that slide?

2:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I presume that is one option in a situation like this. It has been used successfully in other similar situations. At this point, I cannot say precisely that will be the best way in which to deal with this. We are awaiting further word from consultants who are working on the problem, and I expect we will have a strategy in place in the relatively near future for dealing with the specifics.

We are aware of the extent of the plume and its location. The testing will continue to monitor other wells in the area. We have had public meetings with the residents to alert them, even those who are not impacted at this point. We will continue to take a very open approach in terms of sharing all the information we have with the public. Any movement of the plume also will be monitored to the best of scientific ability. I expect that relatively soon we will have some options as to the best technical approach to deal with any movement of that plume.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I have had an ongoing concern about the enacting of some legislation regarding the monitoring of wells in and around known dump sites in Ontario. When might the minister consider making this mandatory around every known site, as well as having stiff penalties for those not living up to that kind of monitoring of wells so we know when any substances are being transported through the aquifer, through the plume and in any other way towards our water sources and wells?

Does the minister not think the time is long past when every known site should have the kind of wells around its perimeter that would allow his ministry to know when those toxic chemicals are moving from the storage areas?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe there is any need for new legislation. What the honourable member is asking for is now almost a standard requirement, and in fact I believe it is on certificates of approval for new sites or for any operating sites as well.

In terms of closed sites, in contrast to other jurisdictions we in Ontario have been looking over the past couple of years for sites that predated any involvement on the part of government in waste management, going back even to the latter part of the 19th century.

In any case where we can identify any reason for concern about those sites, measures of that nature will certainly be taken and any necessary remedial action will be taken. We are not going to sit idly by while a potential problem becomes a real problem. What we are doing at present effectively meets what the member is requesting and no further legislation is necessary.

Mr. Rae: In addition to the steps he says he is going to be taking with respect to the chemical plume and the future testing of other potentially contaminated wells in the area, I wonder whether the minister can assure the House that his ministry is prepared to take direct responsibility and provide those residents whose wells have suffered and been contaminated with safe drinking water?

Is he prepared to make that commitment rather than just give the kind of advice the ministry has given, such as boiling, using carbon filtration and so on? Does he not think his ministry now has a direct responsibility to provide safe drinking water for those people?

Hon. Mr. Norton: On the basis of the very best advice that has been available to me, and to the residents as well, a carbon filtration device that can be installed will remove the two offending chemicals that have been detected. There does not appear to be any wide range of chemicals involved here.

Obviously it would be my opinion at this point that it is the ultimate responsibility of whoever is responsible for the problem to pay. In the interim, that ought not to prevent the residents from proceeding, and if any are suffering hardship we will certainly try to help them out.

GUELPH CORRECTIONAL CENTRE

Mr. Worton: Mr. Speaker, I have a two-part question for the Minister of Correctional Services. I wonder whether the minister will be good enough to bring in a full report to the Legislature in regard to comments that were made by the public institutions inspection panel which indicate they are shocked by the layout of the cells at the Guelph Correctional Centre. It is a 15-page report that was made to the county court judge, Edward McNeely.

The second part of my question refers to a former inmate who is suing the ministry for wrongful imprisonment. If this is before the courts, I would appreciate it if the minister would let me know.

Briefly, it concerns an inmate who was president of the Jaycees at the Guelph Correctional Centre. In 1979, he was invited to participate in a social and fund-raising dinner for the former Minister of Correctional Services. After attending that dinner, he was so enlightened about free enterprise, he left there and for two and a half years wandered throughout the United States and was picked up in New Mexico. He has now come back, has indicated that he felt he had been in jail too long and has taken the ministry to court. I would like to know whether the minister will bring me a full report on the matter.

Hon. Mr. Leluk: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the first question, I have not seen the report of the panel to which the honourable member has referred. I will certainly look into it and report back to him.

With respect to the second question, I am not familiar with the case to which the member has referred. As he said, this took place prior to my becoming minister of this particular portfolio. I will certainly look into that matter and get back to the member.

Mr. Worton: As of this date, is the minister aware that the ministry has been taken to court?

Mr. Speaker: Is that your supplementary?

Mr. Worton: Yes. What I would like to know is, has the ministry been taken to court at this time? Were charges laid, or is the ministry being sued for wrongful imprisonment?

Hon. Mr. Leluk: I am not aware of this case. I will have to get that information and get back to the member.

VEHICLE REGISTRATION

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Transportation and Communications whether it is not true that under his new motor vehicle registration system the amount paid by private motorists for their registration and plates during the year 1983 will not be $48 but will vary from $52 to $96, paid either in one or two instalments, depending on the month of their birth.

Does this change of system not mean that 3.75 million private car owners in this province will pay between $80 and $90 million more during 1983 than they would if he had continued the present system, requiring all plates to be purchased by the end of February?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I cannot comment on the honourable member's suggestion of $80 million or $90 million in increased revenue. It is my understanding that with the uniform fee, the total revenue that will be collected by the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) actually is almost identical to, if not one per cent or some such figure less than, what would have been collected under the old system.

I will have to read Hansard to get the first part of his question before I can comment on the number of months. As far as I know, there are still 12 months in a year --

Mr. T. P. Reid: Check Larry's calendar. There may not be.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I do not know. The way calendars are these days, the are not too reliable.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: They are expensive. For $200 I will give you one.

3 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I have to have a better understanding of what the honourable member is really asking me before I could answer the question.

Mr. Swart: I would have thought the minister would have known more about his own system. Does he not realize that during this coming year some car owners will be paying as much as 23 months' car insurance during 1983? In recognition of this huge bonanza that he is going to get in 1983 --

Mr. Speaker: I do not think insurance has anything to do with the Minister of Transportation and Communications.

Mr. Swart: I will correct that -- licence fees. In recognition of the huge bonanza that he is going to get, I hope he will come back to the House and admit he is taking $80 to $90 extra from motorists this coming year.

Even though Bill 179 says that increases in government fees and licences are going to be limited to five per cent, and recognizing that the present licence plates are valid until the end of February 1983, why does he not start his $4 monthly birthdate system on March 1, 1983, so he does not double bill motorists, and let them keep at least $30 million of the $90 million extra he is going to take from them?

Hon. Mr. Snow: First of all, I would like to inform the honourable member that the licence fee for the present 1982 registration is not valid until the end of February, that licence is valid until December 31, 1982. That is the way it has always been and it has not been changed at all. There has always been a two-month period of grace allowed for the renewal to be made. The licence expires December 31.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, is the minister prepared to look into complaints by motor vehicle dealers who are alleging that the new plates are somewhat more expensive than they were in the past and there are some technical difficulties, particularly for used car dealers, in getting the plate to the vehicle and the vehicle back from various auctions across the province, auctions which may occur under the auspices of his own ministry?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to look into any complaints the automobile dealers have if they would send them to me. I certainly have not heard from them.

TILE DRAINAGE

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. The minister has been speaking for some time now about increasing agricultural production in northern and eastern Ontario, and the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program promised the establishment of a fund to be used for the installation of tile drains in approximately a million acres of land in northern and eastern Ontario.

If the BILD program has any credibility and if the minister is indeed interested in bringing into production more land in northern and eastern Ontario, is he aware that his colleague the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) has withdrawn his approval for the repair of the short drain in Mariposa township, Victoria county, which runs through prime agricultural land?

In view of the fact that this project was approved by the Minister of Natural Resources on October 13, 1982, along with the approval of the Minister of Agriculture and Food, the local council and the federation of agriculture, and in view of the fact that a contract for the work had been awarded by the local council, can the minister assure us that he will personally intervene to see that this drain is repaired and to tell his colleague to stop being influenced by a few anglers who say that the flooding of this agricultural land is providing spawning grounds for muskies?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, first of all, yes, I am aware of the government's commitment to northern and eastern Ontario and I would just remind the member that this year we have substantially increased the allocation of funds for tile drainage in eastern and northern Ontario. In fact, we were able to indicate to the municipalities in the east and north that we were able to meet 100 per cent of their requirements as outlined to us recently, again in eastern and northern Ontario.

On top of that, of course, we have provided additional assistance to eastern and northern Ontario through the northern Ontario rural development agreement and through the eastern Ontario subsidiary agreement --

Mr. Riddell: The Mariposa drain, Dennis.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: You started your question talking about commitment to eastern and northern Ontario. I am just trying to give you a complete answer, my friend. That is all I am trying to do.

Perhaps I would have been more interested in the question about Mariposa if it had come from the member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Eakins); but yes, I am quite aware of the Mariposa shore drain. In fact, a few months ago the council of the township came in to see me about it, and after that meeting some meetings were convened locally, involving representatives of the council, representatives of the anglers and hunters association and representatives of the local federation of agriculture, and it seemed at the time that they had reached an accommodation. The interests of the farmers and the interests of the anglers were accommodated in an arrangement that led to the granting of a contract.

My colleague the Minister of Natural Resources gave an approval under a piece of legislation the name of which escapes me right at this moment. That approval was lifted awaiting the advice of the new council. As I understand it, if the new council confirms the decision of the outgoing council, then the contract will proceed; if not, then it will not. It is one of these admittedly difficult situations, but it has been going on for seven years.

Mr. Eakins: Even though the bylaw has been passed? The bylaw has been passed by the township.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: To answer the member for Victoria-Haliburton, through the member for Huron-Middlesex, the matter is in the hands of the local council, and whatever its decision is it will be final.

Mr. Riddell: I cannot believe this. The minister is aware that this drain is located in an agricultural area and that the flooding caused by the blockage of the drain removes hundreds of acres of potentially productive land from agricultural use. He is also aware, I am sure, that this is an approved drainage system under the Drainage Act -- as a matter of fact, it is a natural waterway -- and that over the last number of years the petition has been reviewed by the courts and the drainage referee, and that all decisions have been favourable to the petitioners.

The minister is also aware, I am sure, that the approval given on October 13, 1982, contained conditions for environmental safeguards if, indeed, there are muskies there --

Mr. Speaker: If the minister is aware, please do not repeat it.

Mr. Riddell: So why has this approval been rejected by the Minister of Natural Resources? If the previous council passed the bylaw and everything was ready to go ahead, why is the minister now saying it is going to be left to the discretion of the new council whether that drain is going to be repaired? If the new council says, "No, we are not going to repair it," is the minister going to sit idly by and allow all this land to be flooded instead of brought into production as he wants to do?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Let's just hold on a second. The member makes it sound as though the sentiment locally is unanimous among the farmers. I am well aware that if this goes ahead certain amounts of land will be improved; but I am also well aware, and the member should be if he is not, that there are probably as many or more farmers locally who are opposed to the work proceeding.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Go and do your homework.

Mr. Riddell: Because of cost.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Riddell: Because of the cost factor only.

Hon. Mr. Pope: No. You do not know about it.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Let's just have that clear and on the record. It is by no means unanimous locally. In fact, I am told it formed the issue in the local municipal elections, in which all but one member of council was defeated. As the member knows, under the legislation --

Mr. Riddell: Indicating there may be a conflict of interest.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: That may well be why the local member has not taken a position; I do not know. But as he knows, under the legislation if the council decides not to proceed, that is its right and that is final. We cannot --

Mr. Riddell: The council decided to proceed.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Riddell: It awarded the contract.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: We cannot force the council to proceed.

3:10 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: I think the minister has answered the question.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I have more, if you would like to hear it.

Mr. Speaker: No, I think we have heard enough.

Mr. Riddell: You really are not interested in bringing land into production, are you?

Mr. Speaker: If the member for Huron- Middlesex wants to continue this debate, I would ask him to please continue it outside the House.

MALETTE LUMBER DISPUTE

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources. Is the minister aware that in 1982 alone the Malette Lumber company, owners of Waferboard in Timmins, has received more than $790,000 from taxpayers in government assistance, about $387,000 of it from the province? Is he aware that this company: locked out its employees, members of the Canadian Paperworkers Union, on November 12 when they rejected the company offer; and rejected as well the last company offer, a rather bizarre request from the company that they conduct a strike vote; and is acting in a manner that can only be designed to destroy the workers' union in that plant? Can he tell us what he is doing to resolve this situation and assure us that tax dollars are not going to Be used to destroy a workers' union?

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what tax dollars the honourable member is referring to. Is he referring to section 38 funding?

Mr. Mackenzie: I am talking about the assistance this company has had.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Section 38 funding to put unemployed bush workers to work. That is what he is talking about. He would not want these bush workers to go to work. That is a very interesting position for the socialist party to take.

Mr. Mackenzie: It is obvious the minister totally ducked the question. Is he afraid of it? I am going to ask him a very simple one. Is he prepared to ask his colleague to immediately appoint a disputes advisory committee in this nasty situation, which yesterday saw the workers taking over that plant and which is poised for some real problems up there?

Hon. Mr. Pope: No; the member can put his request to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay). The member is no doubt aware that I received a request from the --

Mr. Mackenzie: You know what happened.

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections please.

Hon. Mr. Pope: -- union president to do what I could to get negotiations started again. In fact, they met at my instigation on Monday afternoon and Tuesday morning of this week in an attempt to resolve their differences. I cannot get involved in a collective bargaining process.

If the member has a request for the Minister of Labour to do something, please put it to him. I have tried to respond in a responsible way to the request of the union president. To some degree I was successful; to some degree I was not. I am not going to ask for the termination of make-work projects, which are assisting some of the families in the Timmins area, because there is a labour dispute.

GAS LINES FOR RURAL COMMUNITIES

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy. Does his ministry have any programs to provide natural gas lines to rural parts of Ontario and rural communities?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, in addition to the regular programs where applications are made for the extension of service -- the honourable member will be familiar with those -- there is, of course, the federally sponsored program for the expansion of the distribution system. Ontario has received some notification with respect to its share under that program and the companies are preparing their applications accordingly. If the member would like some information about a particular area of the province and where it stands in the priority of things, I would be very happy to look that up for him.

Mr. G. I. Miller: We do have a great need for energy in the tobacco industry. There are particular areas where 15 to 20 farmers would like to hook on the line, to utilize it to keep their costs down. Is there any funding to promote that from the ministry?

Hon. Mr. Welch: If the member will let me have some particulars with respect to the actual location, I will have that followed up for him.

NUCLEAR PLANT SHUTDOWN

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question for the Minister of Energy. Does the minister not find it rather alarming that unit 2 of the Bruce A nuclear station has been shut down since October 29, some five weeks, because of a leak in one of the reactor's 480 pressure tubes, and that Ontario Hydro seems to have been unable to locate the leak for this extraordinary length of time?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I think the first concern must be the whole question of public safety. No doubt the honourable member will agree that has to be the top priority. I am sure once the problem has been located things will be back to normal. I do not have any particular explanation as to why it is taking more time than usual under the circumstances.

Mr. Foulds: Why would the minister not ask, when there is a shutdown at this plant, one which was shut down for a five-day period previously this year for the same problem and which it took 70 people to fix? Does he not think the inability of Hydro to find the leak indicates a vulnerability in the production of nuclear power of which the province had not previously been aware?

Hon. Mr. Welch: No.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs if I can get his attention. I wonder if the minister could tell us if he and his colleague the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) are advocating government policy when they say it is their expectation and hope that the government of this province will guarantee French-language rights and services within our new Canadian Constitution. Is that government policy?

Would he tell us how that squares with some of the policies and statements made by the Minister of Education, who consistently refuses to establish a French-language school board in Ottawa, or his colleague and my dear friend the member for Ottawa West (Mr. Baetz), who says there is no problem with minority language rights in Ontario, and possibly the other colleague behind the minister, the member for Ottawa South (Mr. Bennett), who says there is no problem? Is the minister not playing what is called a little game and what my dear friend and respected journalist Claire Hoy calls playing both ways on bilingualism?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. I would suggest my friend from Ottawa East reads the transcript for the night when this little discussion took place. It was a good discussion and I was sorry the member was not here for that part of the discussion.

Mr. Roy: I was here for most of the other nights.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I was stating what I thought were some of my personal expectations, opinions and goals before I left this particular responsibility. One of those goals has been indicated by the member. It is a personal goal to which I still hold and I do not intend to discuss it. It is certainly not presented in the form of government policy. It is not an official government statement. It is the opinion of the minister responsible for French-language services in this government.

Mr. Roy: I am sure you will understand, Mr. Speaker, that some of us have duties in our ridings. Unlike some of the members on that side, the people in my riding --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary question, please.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the member for Ottawa East will just ask his question without the benefit of any --

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, the only matter I wish to mention is that the people of Ottawa East are pleased to see the member for Ottawa East in the riding, unlike some of the other members across the way.

Mr. Speaker: And now for the question, please.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Please proceed.

Mr. Roy: What is wrong? Did they take away his limousine?

Mr. Speaker: Was that the supplementary?

Mr. Roy: No.

Mr. Speaker: Then get on with it.

Mr. Roy: I am sorry about that.

To try to get some consistency from the parts on that side, I would like to ask the minister, how does it jibe when he in the House and his colleague the Attorney General in Ottawa make statements, as they have, about guaranteeing rights in the Constitution on one hand, and on the other the member for Parry Sound (Mr. Eves) is sort of agitating the community in opposition to a French-language school in his riding?

3:20 p.m.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Eves: On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker: I have never agitated my community against the francophone French-language entity. For the honourable member's information, as the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) reported in this House a week ago, there was a --

Mr. Bradley: Setup question.

Mr. Eves: By your own member. There was a study conducted by the Nipissing Board of Education in the summer of 1981 of each and every francophone resident in the town of Mattawa and they voted 83 per cent against a French-language entity school in Mattawa. The francophone community is deciding for itself.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: Now a supplementary please.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Roy: I should be congratulated for waking up that bunch over there.

Mr. Speaker: I would rather congratulate you for asking a question. We are running out of time.

Mr. Roy: If I may continue with my question, is the minister prepared to accept the recommendations of some of his senior officials and of a report presented to him in Sault Ste. Marie which said that there should be no problem in either guaranteeing the rights in the Constitution or accepting a bill like the one I presented back in 1978 guaranteeing these rights by way of legislation? Is he prepared to accept this report, which was commented on by our friend Eric Dowd in a column in August 1982?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I think I answered that question a few minutes ago. I said exactly in what context I made my remarks. Notwithstanding anything my friend says, the record of this province in providing French-language education is second to none in Canada. There is no problem with that.

I do not dispute the fact that the people in Ottawa East are very happy to see the member there. I have had a few calls and the people from Ottawa East, and indeed all of Ottawa, are very happy to see Omer Déslauriers in a very important job in Brussels.

PETITIONS

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT BILL

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario from 22 constituents of Haldimand-Norfolk. It reads, "We the undersigned beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows: We request that the honourable members seek the withdrawal of Bill 127, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act."

[Later]

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition with 78 signatures to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. "We the undersigned beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows: We request that honourable members seek the withdrawal of Bill 127, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act." And I certainly support this petition.

SCHOOL FACILITIES

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario from 1,400 constituents of Etobicoke, which reads as follows:

"We the undersigned separate school supporters in the area of St. Dorothy's Catholic school in the borough of Etobicoke beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas the generated pupil population of St. Dorothy's Catholic school is 17 per cent over the Ontario Ministry of Education's defined pupil capacity and the Ministry of Education has refused to respond to the inherent demands of young, innocent children who are housed in semi-permanent, relocatable, portable units, although the Minister of Education has committed herself to newly established growth areas, we request that the Legislative Assembly give consideration to ways of providing adequate school facilities for our children."

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: If I am not mistaken, on November 16 of this year the Minister of Labour indicated the government would be introducing changes to the Workmen's Compensation Act in order to give workers who are on workmen's compensation a modicum of an increase in response to the dramatic increase in --

Mr. Speaker: I must point out to the honourable member that is not a point of order.

Mr. Rae: If I may just complete it. It raises, for the attention of the government, and for the attention of the government House leader --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rae: I can understand the embarrassment of the government --

Mr. Speaker: Will you make your point of order please?

Mr. Rae: The point of order is this, Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Labour stated on November 16 that workers should be entitled to an increase. He should know that workers have been coming to this assembly --

Mr. Speaker: That is no point of order.

Mr. Rae: -- for two days a week.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of information, I might inform the leader of the third party that if he would like to put that question to the Minister of Labour tomorrow, I am sure he would get an answer. The minister is in Ottawa today with the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller), signing an agreement on job creation programs.

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Mr. Eves from the standing committee on regulations and other statutory instruments presented the following report and moved its adoption:

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

Bill Pr47, An Act respecting the Ukrainian Culture Centre.

Motion agreed to.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Andrewes from the standing committee on resources development reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Industry and Trade be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983:

Ministry administration program, $7,229,500; industry division program, $17,281,000; trade division program, $11,432,000; industrial incentives and development program, $32,942,000.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

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

That supply in the following amount and to defray the expenses of the Office of the Ombudsman be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983:

Office of the Ombudsman program, $5,124,000.

That supply in the following supplementary amount and to defray the expenses of the Office of the Ombudsman be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983:

Office of the Ombudsman program, $96,000.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

POWER CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Welch moved, seconded by Hon. Miss Stephenson, first reading of Bill 197, An Act to amend the Power Corporation Act.

Motion agreed to.

3:30 p.m.

RESIDENTIAL COMPLEXES FINANCING COSTS RESTRAINT ACT

Hon. Mr. Elgie moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Baetz, first reading of Bill 198, An Act to provide for an Interim Restraint on the pass-through of Financing Costs in respect of Residential Complexes.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Today, I am introducing for first reading the Residential Complexes Financing Costs Restraint Act, a bill that was born out of the controversy surrounding the much-publicized sale and resale of about 11,000 rental units originally owned by the Cadillac Fairview Corp.

In brief, this bill limits to a maximum of five per cent that portion of a rent increase attributable to increased financing costs claimed by a landlord as a result of his purchase of a residential complex. As most of the members already know, this is one of four steps I have taken to deal specifically with the Cadillac Fairview transaction and, in general, with the overall rent review situation at this time.

To refresh the members' memories, the Residential Tenancy Commission has also adopted a number of modifications to its interpretation guidelines to deal with increased financing costs resulting from a sale. In addition, the ministry has set up an inquiry into the adequacy of existing laws regulating rents and has established a further inquiry under the Loan and Trust Corporations Act into a number of trust and mortgage companies involved in different ways with various transactions arising out of the Cadillac Fairview sale itself.

The Residential Complexes Financing Costs Restraint Act applies to all applications by landlords to the Residential Tenancy Commission where the application is made after October 31, 1982. It also applies to all applications where the resulting hearing is held after the date that this act comes in force and invokes a residential complex that has been purchased more than once since October 31, 1979, or approximately within the last three years.

To eliminate any confusion, the term "purchase" has been clearly defined to confirm that it includes the acquisition, whether by transfer or assignment or otherwise, of any interest in an option to purchase or in an agreement to purchase a residential complex.

The Residential Tenancy Commission, when determining the total rent increase for a residential complex, may allow as a component of that total increase an amount equal to no more than five per cent of the last lawful rent in respect of additional financing costs resulting from the landlord's purchase of the residential complex.

I want to emphasize that these approved cost pass-throughs resulting from such a purchase may not always equal even five per cent. The commission may approve an increase attributable to the purchase of a complex of something less than five per cent if such a smaller percentage is all that is justified.

Because the five per cent cap is the maximum increase allowed by the legislation for that part of a rent increase attributable to increased financing costs arising from a sale, the operation of subsection 131(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act is suspended in its regard for relieving the financial hardship that a landlord may experience as a result of increased financing costs attributable to the purchase of a residential complex.

In addition, the operation of subsection 131(4) of the Residential Tenancies Act is also suspended for the life of this act. This subsection had previously allowed the commission, when apportioning a total complex-wide rent increase among the individual rental units, to equalize the rents payable by tenants in similar units in the complex. In other words, for the purposes of this act, and for the life of this act, all of the tenants in the same residential complex shall experience the same percentage increase in their rent.

This act will come into force the day after it receives royal assent, and will remain in force until the last day of December 1983. Despite its repeal on that date, however, the act will remain in force to allow the commission to continue to hold hearings and issue orders on applications for rental increases made on or before December 30, 1983.

I feel that this legislation addresses a very difficult and at times confusing situation. I believe the bill will provide reasonable interim measures until we receive the report of the Thom commission. It will provide relief for tenants whose rents will be affected by cost increases arising out of a sale of the residential complex.

Equally important, the bill should give a clear signal to those entrepreneurs who wish to speculate in residential tenancies that the tenants will not be made the victims of their schemes.

CERTIFIED GENERAL ACCOUNTANTS ASSOCIATION OF ONTARIO ACT

Mr. Williams moved, seconded by Mr. Lane, first reading of Bill Pr50, An Act respecting the Certified General Accountants Association of Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS FAIR PRICING ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved second reading of Bill 184, An Act to provide for the Fair Pricing of Products and Services sold to Consumers in Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: I would like to remind the honourable member that he has up to 20 minutes for his presentation and may reserve any portion of it, as he may see fit, for his windup.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Bill 184, An Act to Provide for the Fair Pricing of Products and Services sold to Consumers in Ontario. It is a genuine and practical effort to help people cope with the law of the jungle that seems to exist in consumer pricing today. It seems that for every legitimate price, or price that is effectively controlled by the marketplace, there is a price that bears no relation to its cost, a price that is manipulated through fixing or simply a price the market will bear or that the sellers can get away with in terms of the product they are selling.

There are a number of examples, both in products and services. One example is the gouging of tenants. The profit ripoff in apartment flips being passed on to tenants is a perfect example of the law of the jungle we have seen in practice in prices in Ontario. What is even more obscene, as far as I am concerned, is this government's lack of concern or willingness to do anything to stop the gouging in any individual service or product. It does not stop the gouging of people until a case is made that is so obvious and blatant it literally forces the Conservatives to take some action.

When they do move, it seems the only consideration in many of the hills is how little they can do and how little they can get away with doing in terms of legislation or controls. The reason is obvious. The members across the way are the rather unashamed handmaidens of private enterprise. For the Tories in Ontario, business seems always to come before the people of this province.

Food prices are another example of what I see as Conservative priorities. The farm community and many produce areas argue that the price received at the farm gate bears little or no relationship to the price paid by the consumer. My colleague the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) is effectively continuing the longstanding fight by this party to get at the sanctity and the secrecy of the middleman and the huge chains with their markups on food products. Getting answers is often harder than pulling hens' teeth. Getting action seems to be almost impossible.

Tory Ontario knows who its friends are and seems to he pretty well organized in the big money field.

3:40 p.m.

I want to give a couple of examples that struck me as we were doing a little bit of work on this situation. I am not sure if these examples have been used previously by my colleague. Recently we were checking into the price of apple juice to back up this point and we found that a can of apple juice on the supermarket shelves that was retailing for $1.29 returned only 17 cents to the farmer involved. In the case of a $1.15 can of beans, the farmer got 37 cents. We could use many examples, but these are certainly indications that something is drastically wrong with the price that is received by the primary producer in comparison with the price that the consumer pays in the marketplace.

In those public or quasi-public businesses or boards, the pricing policies never consider first what the public can afford or what might be fair, or even when it might be socially expedient to limit a price in view of what people can really afford and what are essentials or what is needed. That is never the consideration. It seems to be always a case of what costs and promotions can be passed through to the consumer and what profit can be added to those costs and, in the final analysis in many products, what they can get away with charging.

There are examples around, and the Ontario Hydro increases and Consumers' Gas increases are some of them. I notice that one of the examples used by my colleague the member for Welland-Thorold dealt with Consumers' Gas rates. In a release he put out on October 13, 1982, he makes the following point:

"Last February the Ontario Energy Board permitted increases which caused home heating rates to increase by 32 per cent between February 1981 and 1982. Consumers' Gas' own figures indicate that its net income after all taxes and interest payments would rise by 20 per cent in the year ending September 30, 1982." I use that as one of the many examples that members certainly can go to.

Then there is the perennial cry from Bell Canada for continual rate increases, and I would like to suggest that maybe, just for once, instead of us continuing to get the blind faith we seem to from across the House in their corporate buddies or in the value of the marketplace, this government should make an occasional comment about the potential merit of making the Bell operation really Bell Ontario.

It is just a suggestion. I know darn well we will never see that kind of action from a Conservative government, but just the suggestion would probably help to lower the price to the consumer and scare off some of the exorbitant increases we are always getting petitions about. It would probably do more than the total lack of government action has done to date; not only lack of action but lack of any real concern, as far as I can see, when you watch the constant battle we have over the kinds of price requests that are going on.

What is happening in the insurance field appears to be another example. I note in another release put out by our caucus that on August 16, Ted Belton, president of the Insurers' Advisory Organization of Canada, an agency of the insurance companies, said that rates would increase by 26 per cent this year after a 13.5 per cent increase last year. The chairman of the Insurance Institute of Canada, Ian Muir, predicted that there would be an increase of about 30 per cent starting this year. Whether or not we are actually going to hit that I do not know, but the fact is there seems to be no agency through which or no way the general public really has an opportunity to appeal these kinds of price increases.

My colleague the member for Welland-Thorold once again has fought a valiant fight for consumers over the escalating price of milk to consumers. He has underlined and contrasted the price increases to the farmers as against the larger percentage increase to the consumers. One thing that really caught my eye was that in making the case, my colleague pointed out what has really been happening to the dairy industry and to the concentration of control by fewer large companies.

I notice in the October 15, 1982, Hansard, just very briefly, the point was made very well. In questioning the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie), the member for Welland-Thorold said: "Does the minister not realize that the number of processors of fluid milk in Ontario has dropped in the last 13 years from something like 160 to 135 and now there are four or five, a maximum of five dairies, that have between 80 to 90 per cent of the market." The implications of this kind of concentration on the control of pricing and of any real competition are not too difficult for almost anyone to figure out.

A number of examples of price increases have been documented in this House, sometimes with the rather flip attention of some of the members when my colleague did so. We have had examples of Tide, Prestone, salt, Cheerios, corn flakes. Kraft salad dressing: and with all of them there has been a substantial price increase over the last year or two. The added point made was that in some cases the materials grown or processed or packaged here were sold at substantially cheaper prices in the United States.

Again the questions are raised: Where do people turn? Where do they go when they want to protest what is happening to the prices they have to pay?

The price increases in the examples I have cited were, in most cases, grossly excessive. The commodities that could be looked at and possibly challenged are legion.

Another point I would like to make, because of some of the things that have happened in this House, is that it would be interesting to be able to look at the products of Irwin Toy, for example. In spite of all their labour problems, and undoubtedly aided by the inadequate wage rates that exist there to this day, it was interesting to note the story that appeared on Tuesday, November 16, 1982, in the Globe and Mail, which said, and some members may have seen it, "Irwin Toy expects profit to top last year's record $4.4 million."

It goes on to say, "According to Arnold Irwin, president of Irwin Toy Ltd. of Toronto, Christmas shoppers who leave their toy-buying for the last minute, may find the shelves empty."

He goes on to talk about how well they are doing, how the payout and dividends are going to he much higher and how they are going to make a record profit. All of us know the battle we went through to get representation, let alone a decent contract which does not exist to this day in that particular plant.

If someone wanted to say. "Hey, on one of those toys or products selling at Irwin Toy; how do we have the opportunity to challenge the price?" Certainly some of the arguments that were being made by the company in their long fight to prevent even the organization of their workers have to be open to challenge when you get a picture of vastly increased profits in this particular company.

Where do you turn when you want to ask questions about these prices and the legitimacy and justification of them?

Let me make the point of right and jurisdiction. The question has been raised from time to time in the justice committee as to whether we really did have the right to regulate, to set, to roll back or to control prices. So the committee asked for a position from the Attorney General's department as to what rights we had in Ontario. I will not read the entire letter into the record, but I am going to read page 4 of that letter and the conclusion.

It says, "So long as it did not purport to regulate interprovincial or international trade or conflict with valid federal legislation in relation to the same matter, it would be within the competence of the Legislative Assembly to authorize the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations to regulate, control or roll back prices in Ontario."

We have a very clear ruling from the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) that, yes, we do have the right in Ontario to take such action.

I would also like to add the comments of one other individual who has been in the news a fair amount lately concerning prices and the need for some form of controls. The following comment was made by the chairman designate of the Inflation Restraint Board that we are now, unfortunately, in the process of setting up in Ontario in Bill 179.

What did Mr. Biddell say about the need to regulate? lt is not wages he is talking about, nor is it wages that we are making the point about in this particular bill. He said: "High inflation is a continuing unacceptable rate of increase in the price we have to pay for the goods and services we consume. To contain inflation effectively we must slow down the rate at which prices are increasing; we must control prices.

"Most people believe that this is just what the United Kingdom, the United States and then Canada did under our respective anti-inflation programs in the last five or six years. The fact is that except for a very brief, temporary price freeze in the United Kingdom and the US programs, none of us did. We did not control prices. We are attempting to control some profit margins and we controlled wages and salaries, and we controlled, in some cases, dividends, all in the hope that by doing so we would inhibit price increases. Our efforts might have had some success, but not nearly what we might have had and could in fact achieve now if we set about it in a more direct fashion by directly controlling price increases.

3:50 p.m.

"My major concern is the futility and regressive effect of attempting to achieve price control through profit control. In my opinion this approach greatly limits the effectiveness of any inflation control program." I think it is interesting that the comments came from Mr. Biddell, whom we are setting up as the all-powerful chairman of this Inflation Restraint Board which is going to do all the work on the wages side, but not on the price side, which is what we are talking about.

Bill 184, An Act to provide for the Fair Pricing of Products and Services sold to Consumers in Ontario, is one of a number of bills designed to offer, without overregulation, some positive protection and specific avenues of appeal in terms of prices and one's ability to question prices charged in Ontario. The bill is positive. The explanation of the bill, and I think it is worth concluding with it, says:

"The purpose of the bill is to require a fair price for every product and service sold to consumers in Ontario. Where a retail seller charges an unfair price, the bill sets out procedures and remedies for ensuring compliance with the fair pricing requirement. The bill provides for an appeal of fair pricing orders to the Commercial Registration Appeal Tribunal."

The bill, in effect, enlists the general public and helps them to assist themselves and their own welfare by producing a rather massive self-help effort and self-sufficiency approach. This means the public know they can demand and get some fairness in prices. They know they have an avenue of appeal, as well, with regard to some of the things that are going on in terms of the pricing of products that people buy in Ontario.

It makes eminent sense. It is not a massive control program but a very positive program that could have some real effect in terms of prices. I would hope that all members of this House would see the justice and the sensibleness of this particular approach.

The Deputy Speaker: The honourable member has five minutes remaining. Would he like to use that?

Mr. Mackenzie: I will reserve it.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Mr. Speaker, I have to take exception to the comments made by the member for Hamilton East when he talks about the fairness and equity of retail pricing. There are thousands of retail stores in this province. The merchants depend on the retail market to make a living, and a living that is not comparable to that of some of the workers who are out on strike in this province to this day. There are farmers who should be getting $5 a pound for their beef but are taking a lot less; and they are not able to go out on strike.

Mr. Mackenzie: We are talking about unfair prices. That is not what we are talking about at all.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I rise in my place to speak against this bill and express in the strongest possible way my complete opposition to this ridiculous piece of so-called legislation. As legislation, it would be more suitable for China, Russia or perhaps unfortunate countries such as Poland.

Mr. Mackenzie: Talk about hard hats.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: This bill smacks of storm troopers marching into the retail stores of this province because of some customers' complaints. The member for Hamilton East, indeed, the entire New Democratic Party caucus have absolutely no idea of the basic principle of retail merchandising. Since not one of them has ever owned a retail business I can understand their lack of knowledge of retailing. I apologize if I have missed some.

Mr. Cassidy: The principle is to charge what the market will bear.

Mr. Williams: They don't deny it, though.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: However, I do hope that some of the Liberals have the good sense to vote against this bill; I am certain that I can see a few over there who will.

Having owned and operated my own retail business for over a quarter of a century, I think I have far more knowledge of retailing than any of the members in the NDP party. For their information, I will tell them that the basic principle in retailing --

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I am somewhat surprised that you have not pointed out to the honourable member that this is private members' hour this afternoon. I am rather surprised, too, that you have allowed him to impugn the motives of members opposite to him. I am also surprised that you allowed him to make such rather misinformed statements about --

The Deputy Speaker: I do not think that is a good point of order. You have it on the record anyway.

Mr. Breaugh: You will hear subsequently then.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: The basic principle in retailing --

Mr. Mackenzie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would like to take just one second to point out to the honourable member across the way, who has been a member for at least as long as I have and by now should at least know that this is the New Democratic Party, not the NDP party.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Do I get those two minutes added on?

The Deputy Speaker: We will make an allowance.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: The basic principle in retailing is quite simple. To be successful in business, especially in smaller communities, a merchant must satisfy his customers or quite simply he will not survive. A successful retailer must buy good quality merchandise at reasonable prices and must sell that merchandise also at reasonable prices. Further, the merchant must provide a pleasant shopping area and satisfactory service.

There is only one judge and only one that is necessary. That, of course, is the customer. The customer always determines if a price is fair. A fair price is exactly what the customer is willing to pay. If a merchant charges too much, the merchandise will not sell. If he charges too little, the merchant will not stay in business very long.

Average, intelligent customers shop before they buy. They compare prices in several stores and select the one that is a fair price based on service and other factors, not just the lowest price. They also check ads in the local papers and even let their fingers do the walking through the yellow pages of the telephone directory. Most customers decide to patronize certain stores because they have confidence in the integrity of those merchants. I am proud to say that when I closed my store last year, after 31 years, I had customers who had dealt with me for all of those 31 years.

Before I deal with certain sections of Bill 184, I would like to read into the record some comments made by the Retail Merchants Association of Canada, Ontario Inc., and the Canadian Organization of Small Business. I might mention that I served as the director of the Retail Merchants Association of Canada, Ontario Inc., for some years.

This is a letter addressed to me, dated November 17, and it is signed by John Gillespie. president of the Retail Merchants Association of Canada. I will just read excerpts from it.

"The concept of Bill 184 is not only preposterous but dangerous to a free enterprise system."

Mr. Mackenzie: Like Bill 179.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: "It is frightening to acknowledge that we have Kremlin-type thinking within the NDP members in Ontario."

That is what he says. I am just quoting.

"A copy of my letter to the Honourable Mr. Elgie in response to this proposal is attached for your use.

"I would also like to remind the members of the House that within the last six months --

Mr. Cassidy: Have you ever considered that Bill 179 is Kremlin-type thinking?

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Cassidy, why don't you shut up just for once.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, order. Unparliamentary language --

Mr. J. M. Johnson: "I would also like to remind the members of this House that within the last six months of this year we have lost over 450 small retail store members in Ontario, not as a result of" --

Mr. Cassidy: Did you send a delegation to Warsaw before you brought in that bill?

The Deputy Speaker: Order, reminding all members, as it was well pointed out by the member for Oshawa, this is private members' hour.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: -- "over 450 small retail store members, not as a result of bankruptcy but by simply having to close their doors and walk away because their incomes are so low. The are so low that they cannot make a living. Many of them spend 10 and 20 years in business --

Mr. Mackenzie: That is the high interest rates.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Blame it on something.

"Many put in a 60-hour week in small stores and have take-home pay of less than $15,000 per year. Even after all the family shares the work load, these people -- and there are hundreds of thousands in Ontario and across Canada -- are appalled at civil service pampering and union blackmail. We urge the provincial government to stand strong on government spending controls in the public sector, despite the loud voices of the unions.

"The overwhelming mass of workers in Ontario, especially in small retailing, support your efforts to fight our way out of the present economic mess, mostly caused by the socialist, something-for-nothing philosophy of our federal Liberal government." Sorry about that. "Can you imagine what it would be like if the NDP added their misery to this?"

4 p.m.

Mr. Sweeney: Who wrote that?

Mr. J. M. Johnson: John Gillespie, a good friend of the member for Perth (Mr. Edighoffer).

Here is a letter from Geoffrey Hale, director of the Canadian Organization of Small Business.

"The Canadian Organization of Small Business respectfully requests that you and your caucus colleagues take a strong stand in opposition to Bill 184. This bill would have the effect of threatening the viability of the entire independent retail sector. We ask that it be vigorously opposed in principle as well as its implementation.

"There are more than 60,000 retailers in Ontario and most of them are small independents. They serve a valuable function within the marketplace, often serving specialized or local market needs in a way that larger chain stores are unable to do economically.

"Bill 184 is an unnecessary and mischievous piece of legislation. We hope that you and your colleagues will display your continuing support for small business in Ontario by speaking and voting against this bill."

I should like to make just a few comments before I conclude.

What is an unfair price? If a retailer charges too much, that is unfair to the consumer. If a retailer charges too little, is it also unfair? It certainly is to his competitors. Surely any political party that feels $9 an hour is not enough for labour would want to see the retailers make at least that much, especially when one considers the capital investment as well.

Section 3 states, "Where, upon the complaint of a person . . . the director may order the retail seller to . . . establish a fair price for the product or service." Does that mean he must raise or lower the price? Does that mean any customer not satisfied with the purchase can threaten the merchant with the possibility of a charge being laid?

The Deputy Speaker: One minute.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Does that include the interjections?

The Deputy Speaker: Yes.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Thank you.

Unfair price: a $2,000 fine or one year in jail or both. We do not serve that type of sentence for assault and battery.

In conclusion, I want to say that the last bill presented by the New Democratic Party, by the member for Downsview (Mr. Di Santo), had to be withdrawn because of poor drafting or just a plain goofup. I suggest to the member for Hamilton East that if he had any sense he would withdraw this bill as well.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill 184. I find this bill philosophically abhorrent. In my opinion it also happens to be functionally impossible, because any law that cannot be enforced cannot be a law.

This bill, quite apart from the repugnant control which it intends government to have over its citizens, is unenforceable. When any law is in that situation, it leads only to derision, contempt and disrespect for the institution of law itself.

In the dream of the member for Hamilton East to regulate all of society's behaviour, in this case commercial behaviour, he would promote commercial anarchy. Supposedly there is one law for all retailers, but in fact there will be one law, and indeed no law, for all retailers.

What is the object of the bill? Ostensibly it is to ensure that only fair prices are charged for goods and services. This goal, of course, in isolation from the bill, is laudable. But how does the honourable member propose to achieve this goal? He proposes to subordinate the free will of the human beings of this province to the discretion or whim of a judgement of a presumably omniscient and infallible director or tribunal. The means, therefore, have corrupted the ends.

This machinery reminds me of the Committee of Public Safety in the French Revolution or, indeed, of the thought police of George Orwell.

This bill has nothing to do with ensuring fair competition. It has nothing to do with stamping out unfair business practices. It has nothing to do with consumer protection. Although the member may say that such is the case, let us not be fooled. What we have here is an unveiled attempt to impose ideology where none exists. It is all too chillingly reminiscent of an image of the future where the ideology of the state consumes the freedom of the individual.

Are we really desirous of bringing in the society envisioned by George Orwell's book 1964, just 13 months before that futuristic date is upon us? George Orwell must surely have had this kind of government imposing Bill 184 in mind when he wrote, "If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever."

Every retail business, if this member had his way, would become the government's business. The implications of so monolithic an element of government control are staggering. Having first established the price, the government apparatus could justifiably establish the quantity of the goods or services sold, then the persons to whom those goods or services could be sold, then the locations, and so on.

Bear in mind that we are not dealing with a bill that speaks to the need to regulate the sale of a commodity, the nature and supply of which may be vital to the national interest, such as petroleum or uranium. No, this bill would regulate the sale of every conceivable item from buttons to boysenberry jam, from hamsters to herring -- absolutely everything within our society.

How could such a law conceivably be enforced? According to the Retail Council of Canada, there are approximately 75,000 conventionally defined retail establishments in Ontario. This figure does not take into account those establishments not defined by their criteria as retail, yet obviously caught remorselessly in the web of the member for Hamilton East. I speak in this context of stores providing services such as dry cleaning, shoe repairing or even the various professional groups of the province who offer their services for sale.

What sort of a bureaucratic army would be created to enforce the dictum of the director? At what cost in terms of both freedom and dollars, and for what purpose? All to ensure that a jar of boysenberry jam is sold in accordance with the commercial tastes of the director.

Look with me through the various sections of this bill. "Product" is defined to include everything, I presume, from bubble gum to a fleet of aircraft carriers. "Retail seller" is defined to include everyone, regardless of size of establishment, nature of establishment or purpose of establishment.

Look at the operative section 2. "Every" means no exceptions. "Fair" can never be an objective determination; it can only be subjective according to the standards of the person who does the measuring; in this case, the director.

Section 3 shows that we are subject to abuse by anyone with a real or imaginary grievance or grudge against an unsuspecting retailer. Indeed, the phrase "reasonable and probable grounds" is terminology borrowed from criminal law. One senses the insidious effort to have a state versus individual connotation introduced into every commercial transaction in the province. How can the director have grounds to believe until after he knows all the facts?

The phrase "has charged" is used; so presumably prices charged long ago -- how long ago? A month, a week, even a year? Who knows? -- are going to be subject to the review of this omniscient and abhorrent tribunal. The discretionary power of the director is not only incredibly broad but internally inconsistent. How can he order the compliance of a retailer without first establishing what constitutes a fair price?

Look at the apparatus in section 4: a notice, a proposal, written reasons, a hearing, a tribunal, regulations, orders, terms and conditions, parties to proceedings -- and all this for a jar of herring.

Section 5, coupled with section 2, makes the will of the director the dominant, paramount will of commercial life. Big Brother truly has arrived in Ontario.

The unfettered powers of investigation that go to the minister under section 6 deal with any matter to which this act applies.

Look at the offences under section 10. The bill invokes double jeopardy. There is an offence for failure to comply with an order and, indeed, for the event itself. The potential penalties are up to $2,000 or one year of imprisonment -- and all this for a jar of boysenberry jam.

I suggest the philosophy underlying this bill contravenes every notion and principle of freedom upon which our traditions and institutions are maintained. I certainly reject the bill in principle and in every one of its details. I hope other members of the House will join with me in rejecting this bill as unworthy of the serious consideration of this assembly.

4:10 p.m.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, as one might anticipate, I rise in support of the bill introduced by my colleague the member for Hamilton East. Although I have a 10-minute written statement here, perhaps it will be more useful to reply to some of the comments that have already been made.

Obviously and deliberately, the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. J. M. Johnson) distorted what my colleague from Hamilton said. He knows, as does everyone else in this House, that the intent of this bill is to deal on an ad hoc basis with those prices that are excessive in our society. Many times we have spoken on this subject --

Mr. Kerrio: On a point of privilege. Mr. Speaker: One of the things I know the chair has great respect for is the integrity of the individual, and to impugn another member's motives is completely out of order. I thought that gentleman made a wonderful presentation during private members' hour. I am very disappointed that the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) would impugn motives, suggesting he was distorting the presentation --

The Deputy Speaker: All right, you have made your point.

Mr. Kerrio: But I would like you to consider it, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: It is not a point of privilege or a point of order. You tried.

Mr. Kerrio: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Swart: I am not surprised to hear the member for Niagara Falls getting up to defend one of the most right-wing statements that has ever been made in this House.

I think what the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel said -- and the applause he got from the other members on that side indicates a real sensitivity about this matter -- shows that the public out there is anxious to have a fair prices commission and to have a government that deals with those excessive prices on behalf of the consumers of this province. That must have some great appeal when the members opposite make those kinds of statements about it. They are so concerned they went out and got those letters they could read into the record here today. I would be a little bit surprised if those were passed at their convention.

I want members to know that many of the grocers, and their associations and members, have been in touch with me and have been concerned about what is happening with the supermarkets and unfair competition, what is happening with dairies and the discounts to the supermarkets. They cannot even buy the milk for what the supermarkets are selling it for. That is why they are going out of business, and the member knows that to be the case.

When it comes to it, and this is being proved more and more every day, it is this party that is really concerned about preserving competition in this province, especially after the comments the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. Walker) made. The members opposite are looking more and more to this party to preserve that competition. The Conservative stand at present is shown when the Minister of Industry and Trade says: "We don't care about competition. That has no more relevance in our society." That is what he said. I can send members a copy of his speech of a year ago last September. It is we who are trying to preserve this competition and deal with the real world.

If the member disagrees with this so much, why did his government appoint Mr. Jack Biddell? In this bill we are doing exactly what he says should be done. Why did the government appoint him? I would like to hear one of the members opposite speak afterwards and tell me why Mr. Biddell was appointed when he holds those views, the same as we do, about direct, ad hoc price control. That is what this bill is about.

What the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt) said reminds me that just that argument was put up by Pierre Trudeau in the election in 1974. It was identical: that price controls and wage controls would not work. Pierre Trudeau was not going to put on any controls; then, in the fall of 1975, he went on television and announced that controls were going to go on. The price controls he put on were far more comprehensive than what we are proposing in this bill. This is only ad hoc; he put on comprehensive price controls. Just a year before that time, when he was fighting an election, the Liberal leader in Ottawa talked the same way as the member for Kitchener did today. It makes me think that maybe the Liberals here are thinking of bringing in a similar bill to the one Mr. Trudeau brought in back in 1975 when he established the Anti-Inflation Board.

Mr. McGuigan: It did not work.

Mr. Swart: I know. Maybe I am judging those people wrongly. Perhaps all they want is wage controls. That is all they want. The federal government now has put on wage controls, and those people are supporting the government over there on wage controls at present; but when it comes to controlling prices, even unjust prices, those people want to keep their hands off. Those people want to control inflation; but they are not going to control it by the way the federal government proposes it and by the way that they propose it here.

How much time have I left, Mr. Speaker?

The Deputy Speaker: Four minutes.

Mr. Swart: Fine. I had intended to deal with the bill in more detail, but it seems important that those things be answered and put in perspective in this House.

We think that a fair prices commission is the alternative to the proposal of freezing or cutting back the wages for 500,000 people. We think it is fairer than that, and we think it is more workable. We know the total answer to inflation is not by having an ad hoc fair prices commission, but if the prices are held down, that will keep the lid on as well as keeping down all the input costs. It is a much more effective way than just dealing with one sector of the input, such as the civil servants, to break their contracts and keep them down. What we propose here is much more effective than that.

I was rather amazed to hear the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel get up and make the statement he did about no control. One of the things we would control would be auto insurance rates. We think they are rather excessive.

The other day in the committee, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie), to prove that we do not need the kinds of controls we are talking about, read into the record the comparable auto insurance rates across Canada. He regrets that he ever read it into the record.

I have here what he read into the record. It shows that in Regina, Saskatchewan, in Winnipeg, Manitoba, and even in Edmonton and Calgary, Alberta, and in British Columbia, the auto insurance rates are a lot cheaper than they are in this province. I have the record here, but I will not take time to read it.

This is the point I want to make. Six months or a year ago, a Conservative government was elected in Saskatchewan -- applaud for that; please applaud --

[Applause]

Mr. Swart: What has the Conservative government in Saskatchewan done? It has instituted a public utility review commission in Saskatchewan to review all the insurance rates there and all the costs of public utilities, including hydro. They have to give three months' notice. The Conservative government in Saskatchewan is going to control the rates. Can you believe that?

Mr. McClellan: They could not do that here.

Mr. Swart: The government would not do that here; oh, no. I want to tell the member that he is out of touch with what the people are thinking in this province. The government is out of touch with the way prices are hurting the common people in this province. The government is out of touch with the fact that there are various areas of this province where prices are going up where they should not go up, where there is no reason for them to go up.

Here in the House I documented cases where excessive profits are being made, and the member is saying that the government does not want to even look at those increases. That is what this government is saying. We are not saying we want comprehensive price controls. We are saying we want price controls where there is prima facie evidence that there are price increases that are hurting people and where there is no justification for those increases. We are saying the government has a responsibility to its citizens to investigate such price increases and, if it finds them unjustified, to roll them back. That is what we have in this bill and that is what we want in this party.

4:20 p.m.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to participate in the debate on Bill 184, an act purporting to provide for the fair pricing of products and services sold to consumers in Ontario.

I am sure the member for Hamilton East and the member for Welland-Thorold must be very proud to have this legislation introduced into the House today. I mention the member for Welland-Thorold in particular because he is obviously, in his own mind, a self-proclaimed consumer advocate in Ontario. This legislation epitomizes the socialist thinking and dogma that would not just bring free enterprise to its knees but bury it.

While they take some pride in bringing this legislation forward, I am sure it is also done with trepidation. I notice it took them two years to get up the nerve to bring this legislation into the Legislature. The member for Welland-Thorold brought it in two years ago but did not have the nerve to proceed with it. Now, here they are, with trepidation bringing it in today, and properly being maligned by other members of the Legislature on revealing what the substance of this legislation is all about.

This is the most absurd and most repressive socialist legislation to come down the pike in a long time. Given that it is coming to us double-barrelled, from not one but two of the most rabid socialist members in the Legislature, it is understandable.

In case there is any doubt that I am not supportive of this bill, I want to offer a little bit of constructive criticism in reference to a couple of the specific proposals in the bill. I will refer to three sections in particular.

Section 2, which was pointed out by the member for Kitchener as the operative section of the bill, talks about the retail sellers of this province. It is interesting that throughout the whole presentation made by the member for Hamilton East, he talked about anything and everything but the retailing business. I did not realize Ontario Hydro sold boysenberry jam and salt and potatoes at the local corner store. I did not realize Cadillac Fairview and the rollover of the financing of buildings had something to do with the retail business in Ontario.

I wonder whether the sponsor of this bill has read his own legislation. He did not talk about the small retailers at all. I would be delighted if he and the member for Welland-Thorold would deliver copies of this bill to all the small retailers in their ridings, because they would not be back after 1985. It is a disgraceful piece of legislation. I hope it gets all the press it deserves in their ridings. To see what they are doing to the small businessman in those municipalities is disgusting.

Let us look at section 2. It dogmatically offends not only the vast majority of the members of this Legislature but also the people of our vast province who believe in the free enterprise system. It is offensive because it talks about dealing with costs that have nothing to do with the retail sector. It is talking about the producers, the distributors and the marketers. They are the people who deal with the products before they even reach the retailers' shelves.

If the member for Hamilton East is going to talk about costs, he should be comparing apples with apples, not apples with oranges. All he has talked about is the producers. He wants to assess the retailers' costs on the basis of the farm-gate costs and what the farmers' costs are in conducting their farming businesses. He is talking about the distributors, the middlemen, and assessing whether the retailer is legitimately putting prices on his products based upon what the middleman is having to absorb in the way of operating costs and marketing. These matters are all external to, and out of the control of, the retailer himself.

In his legislation, why did the member not refer to the operating costs to the retailer, the man he wants to penalize? Why no reference to his costs for heating, for taxes, for paying his staff, for stocking the shelves and for storage space? Why did he not have the common sense? Of course, not ever having been a retailer, he perhaps does not understand that there is a difference between talking about the producers and the distributors and talking about the individual retailers. So obviously that whole section is basically flawed. That is the first point I would like to draw to the members' attention.

Section 3 says, "Where, upon the complaint of a person or upon his own motion" -- that is, the motion of the director -- "on reasonable and probable grounds" -- well, the member for Kitchener has already shot that section down. When the member refers to "reasonable and probable grounds," he must think it is a criminal offence to legitimately sell retail products in this province, because that is what he is implying. It is terminology you will find in the Criminal Code.

As far as setting any benchmarks or criteria is concerned, who is going to set the objective ground rules here? I know the member for Welland-Thorold envisages the director as being a person who looks, thinks and would act as he does. I am sure it would be someone very much along those lines. I am also sure that if the member for Welland-Thorold had the opportunity to be appointed as that director, he would quit politics today and take over that directorship tomorrow. I am sure it would relieve him of a real problem, because he would not then have to continue shuffling off to Buffalo to buy his groceries at lower prices, then bringing them into this Legislature to justify buying all his groceries for personal consumption and use at a lower price and thereby continuing to offend the local merchants in his area for buying his goods in Buffalo rather than from his own local grocers. He uses that as a basis for coming here --

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, on a point of personal privilege: I do not buy my groceries in Buffalo. As a matter of fact, I do not usually buy them even in the supermarket. My wife likes the local retailers, the independents, and that is why she buys her groceries in Ontario.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, that is certainly part of the public perception, because I have had it conveyed to me as a possibility that the member must do all his personal grocery shopping in Buffalo. We know, as the member for Hamilton East said, that unfortunately in this country we do not have the same volume production, because we have a smaller marketplace to sell to. There are advantages: where there is greater volume there are cost savings to the retailer, and that saving is quite often passed on to the consumer; but to try to compare the cost of groceries purchased in the United States, which are also on a different weight measure from ours in Canada today, again is comparing apples to oranges. Here we have some of the inconsistencies that appear throughout the whole of this convoluted piece of legislation.

I want to come to section 10. This is a section that imposes not only a fine of $2,000 for selling a jar of peanut butter or whatever for possibly a penny or two over price, at least in the mind of the director, but also, on top of that, imprisonment. Is that not what we really want in this province? That really has to take the cake, if I can use that term. But on top of that, if the little corner grocer decides he wants to incorporate his business to try to limit his liability under his operation, as soon as he becomes a corporation the penalty is increased from $2,000 to $25,000. So for the pleasure and for legitimate business reasons of incorporating a small private business, he could be subjected to 12 times the $2,000 penalty; plus, of course, being thrown into prison.

This has to be the most enlightened gobbledegook, which the sponsor of this bill calls social legislation, that has been presented to this House in some time. As my colleague suggested, I wonder whether he seriously wants this bill to be voted on at the end of the private members' hour or whether he should do a service to this House and withdraw the bill at this time.

4:30 p.m.

Mr. Wildman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Is the member suggesting that if we would consider withdrawing this bill, they would consider withdrawing Bill 179?

The Deputy Speaker: I am advised that the member for Kitchener-Wilmot has eight minutes. The member who brought in the resolution reserved five minutes.

Mr. Sweeney: Eight minutes. Mr. Speaker? I guess that is about what it will take.

I am a little surprised at the drafting of this legislation because the member who introduced it has a favourite expression which he often uses when other members of this House bring in legislation. He uses the term "motherhood." If there has been a piece of legislation in a long time which deserves that title, it is certainly this one.

I am opposed to the legislation because it does not do what the member says it will do. As a matter of fact, the member who introduced the legislation, when making his own comments, pointed out -- and he is quite free to check the record to double check this -- - that the items that could be covered under this legislation are legion.

Certainly, they are legion because it says under the definition, " 'product' means an item of goods," and under section 2, "every retail seller." Absolutely nothing is to be exempted. Every single tin, chocolate bar, bottle of pop, magazine and whatever it is is included in this legislation.

At the same time, the member who introduced it said, "It will cover only the products that people must buy." Who are we to believe? Are we to believe what is printed in black and white or what the member who introduced it says it means? It makes it rather difficult to vote for a piece of legislation, either for or against, when we have two very different interpretations.

The member for Welland-Thorold said clearly, "No, we are not talking about everything," to use his term, "we are talking about only those serious cases."

That is not what the legislation says. It says every single item that is sold in this province in any retail outlet is subject to this legislation. What does he mean by "serious"? It includes everything. Then, of course, the member for Welland-Thorold gets up here and says, "We are the party that is going to protect competition in Ontario."

They are going to protect competition by having everything sold at exactly the same price. I would be interested to know what their definition of competition is. If there is no price competition, there is no competition.

I come from an area, the city of Kitchener, which in the retail business is probably the most price competitive area in this province. I challenge anyone in the House to check into that. In my community, we have lots of small business people who are competing in the marketplace for price and quality. If they were subject to this legislation they might as well close up their shops. What it would effectively do, whether the member realizes it or not, would be to put every small businessman out of business.

The only ones who could compete would be the large chains. Dominion, Loblaws, Simpsons and Sears could live with this. Hundreds of small businessmen in my community could not live with this.

In section 2 they say they are going to have pricing based upon "the costs of production, distribution and marketing." I would like to know how they are going to decide what those costs are. I would like to know what criteria they are going to use.

For example, there is a small businessman in my community who sells furniture, doll carriages and things like that. He is able to sell those at a lower cost because he will travel all across the country, pick them up himself and market them in an area which does not have high rent.

What are they going to do with that man? Put him out of business because he does not charge prices that are high enough? It does not say anything as to whether or not a businessman can sell below cost. It suggests he cannot; but that is what a lot of businesses are doing at present.

Then the member who introduced the bill had the nerve -- that is about the only word I can use -- to say, "And it is without over-regulation." I have not seen a piece of legislation brought into this House by anybody in a long time which has much more regulation than this one. We are going to have a tribunal, a director, hearings and orders. What does he mean by regulation? Every single --

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I would point out that the insurance rating board in Alberta operates with two and a half people, and it saves tens of millions of dollars for the taxpayers.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): That is not a permissible point of order; not at all.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, that is clearly a violation of the points of order in this House.

Every single person who buys anything in this province, 8.5 million people, would be subject to this legislation. The hundreds of thousands of retail outlets would be subject to this legislation. Any jurisdiction that has tried to introduce legislation like this has seen itself corrupted; corrupted because the thing that comes in right afterwards is a very efficient and a very effective black market. If that is what they want to see in Ontario, that is the kind of legislation we want, corrupting legislation.

We can go to places such as Russia and China and see where the government operates every store. That is how they control the prices and that is how it would have to be done here too. They would have to take over every single small retail outlet in Ontario.

We have a piece of legislation before us that would mean totalitarianism in its finest sense. We are going to have a director who is going to decide every single price on items that are going to be sold. We are going to have a tribunal which is going to put every single retailer in Ontario on trial, everybody.

When I came down here this morning from my own community of Kitchener, I stopped at a --

Mr. Breaugh: In your BMW.

Mr. Sweeney: Yes, that is nine years old. How old is yours?

I stopped at a store and bought several things which were being sold at discount. This legislation would prevent me from doing this, because it would prevent those stores from selling at a discount. It would prevent competition in Ontario. It would prevent small businesses in Ontario from competing with the big chains. It would set up a bureaucracy the likes of which we have never seen in Ontario, but that suits the political ideology of the New Democratic Party right to a T and that is why I am fundamentally opposed to this legislation because it does not do what the member says it should do. It does nothing but harm to the retail business in Ontario and should be opposed by every member of this House.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I know the honourable member who introduced this terrible legislation has five minutes left, but we have not been told yet whether there is any time left for any other members to participate in this debate.

The Acting Speaker: That is a fair point of order, but the answer is no.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I want to put something on record very clearly here. I would just love to respond to some of the rather ridiculous criticisms. I want the honourable members to know that I am very pleased to be on the side of consumers and fair prices in this province against both of these other two parties. I just love it.

I would like the members of this House who shout about private enterprise and what we are doing to prices to justify to the member for Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) why the residents of Fort Severn, for example, who are locked in and do not have an awful lot of choice, pay the following:

For five kilograms of flour, $8.59; for one pound of lard, $1.25; for one pound of baking powder, $2.39; for two kilograms of sugar, $3.19; for one pound of tea bags, $1.25; -- and I might say the members negotiated cheaper rates for getting this material in and it has not helped them a darn bit -- for one pound of ground coffee, $3.79; for one pound of instant coffee, $5.82; for a can of Carnation milk, $1.15; for eggs, $1.85 a dozen; for bread, $1.45 a single loaf; for butter, $2.79 a pound; for pork chops, $3.99 a pound; for a pound of hamburger, $3.35; for turkey, $1.89 a pound; for a pound of grapes, $2.19; for one pound of oranges, $1.29; for a three-pound bag of apples, $2.79; one litre of fresh milk, $1.89; propane, $86 a bottle; gasoline, $6.19 a gallon; naphtha, $8.99 a gallon; kerosene, $6.50 a gallon; and a half litre of oil, $1.55.

4:40 p.m.

Where is the free enterprise system for these particular residents? I think this is a valid point. I want to make it clear the bill is not all inclusive. It is permissive legislation, permissive ad hoc, which simply means there is the right to question high prices.

I am absolutely appalled at the lack of understanding and the stupidity of the comments I have heard in this House. It makes no sense whatsoever. Are we or are we not trying to protect people? These people across the way talk about a Kremlin-like bill: my God, what is closer to a fascist piece of legislation, or communist piece of legislation, than Bill 179, which both those parties are supporting?

Mr. Sweeney: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The member has not read his own legislation. The legislation says, "Every retail seller shall offer each product." There are no exceptions.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, the member did not mention "at a fair price." Is that not a worthy objective?

The Acting Speaker: The member for Rainy River. Is this a point of order?

Mr. T. P. Reid: If you will give me a minute I will find exactly the order that I am concerned about. The member who just spoke talked about fascist and communist legislation and lumped this in --

Interjections.

Mr. Philip: Where were you when all the red baiting was going on?

The Acting Speaker: Your point of order, please?

Mr. T. P. Reid: I was not at the Ontario Federation of Labour voting for the Palestine Liberation Organization, I can tell you.

The Acting Speaker: I am recognizing the member for Rainy River.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, probably my colleague the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) can tell you better than I can, but in our standing orders phrases and statements that are likely to cause disturbance or cast aspersions on other members are not tolerated. I would ask the member to withdraw those allegations.

Mr. Mackenzie: I have no intention of withdrawing the remarks, Mr. Speaker. They were in response to a charge that this was Kremlin-like legislation. How stupid can they be? If they want to take a look at calling this Kremlin legislation, what are these two parties doing by supporting Bill 179?

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Watson moved, seconded by Mr. Andrewes, resolution 37;

That in view of the continuing importance of agricultural growth to Ontario, as well as the importance of new scientific and technical developments in the field of agriculture, this House advocates the creation of a select committee or a subcommittee of the standing committee on resources development to examine the levels of both private and public sector funding for agricultural research and development in the province, and to report back to this House or the standing committee as is appropriate.

The Acting Speaker: The member can reserve any portion of his 20 minutes for windup.

Mr. Watson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to bring to the attention of the House this afternoon a topic which has been of importance to Ontario and will be of increasing importance in the future and perhaps has not been discussed in the House for some time. The field of agricultural development is something this House spends too little time on.

Fortunately, there are some issues which, regardless of rural or urban approach, we can all agree on. I think we can agree that agricultural research is one of those areas because its benefits are shared by everyone. The only problem in the field of agricultural research is that we have probably not focused enough attention on it. If that is so, I hope we can do that here this afternoon.

New developments in research can affect farmers in many different ways. Research can result in a significant improvement in the agricultural economy. Advances can increase the size of a producer's yield or lessen the costs of production. Still other successful research can make it possible to put new land into production, land that otherwise could not have been put into production or on which it would have been impossible to produce economically.

A few years ago I had the opportunity to serve on a livestock feed task force, and one of the things this task force did was tour northern Ontario to see the potential for development in that area. The Ministry of Agriculture and Food is moving on some of those things at present, and I believe there is great potential for development through research in that.

But if it does that in the north, the potential for the southern regions of this province is even greater. Most farmers tend to look to research developments to provide either improved efficiency or improved quality. Of course, for the majority of farmers in Ontario, efficiency is more a way of life, particularly in times when costs are high and returns are low. Farmers and the farming sector must be efficient, and this is mainly the case, quite unlike other sections of the economy that should be efficient and are not.

Food producers must be efficient because of the competition in the food industry. Canadian tariffs on agricultural products average around five per cent, while manufactured products are often protected by tariffs of up to 40 per cent. As well, the basic input costs for Canadian farmers can be as much as 20 to 30 per cent higher than those of their competitors south of the border, and when selling in other countries Canadian farm products must face tariffs as high as 30 per cent. Yet as we heard in the debate here a couple of weeks ago on an earlier ballot item that dealt with export trade missions for agricultural products, Ontario products can still compete because of their quality.

Our exports have continued to grow, and this government, through the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, has assigned considerable importance to this program in order to cut our food trade deficit. Even higher priority has been given to import replacement programs, which, with the aid of research, can go a long way in reducing our food trade deficit. Here in Ontario we have already taken significant steps in agricultural research and we are embarking on even more projects to ensure that we will be able to export more food and at the same time grow more ourselves.

As we can all remember from our history books, in the early days of this province a greater portion of Ontario's population was occupied in farming. The history of agricultural research in Ontario can be traced back for well over 100 years. Back in 1874, the Ontario Agricultural College and experimental farm were established at Guelph, owned and operated by what was then the Ontario Department of Agriculture. A few years later the federal government also began its involvement in agricultural research. This activity by the federal government began in 1885 with a bill establishing five experimental farms.

In Ontario, one of the most significant legislative steps in the history of agricultural research occurred in 1962 with the passage and proclamation of the Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario Act. The duties of that institute are to inquire into programs of research in respect of agriculture, veterinary medicine and household science; to select and recommend areas of research for the betterment of agriculture, veterinary medicine and household sciences; and to stimulate interest in research as a means of developing in Ontario a high degree of efficiency in the production and marketing of agricultural products.

Today the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food conducts a wide range of research endeavours, which cover but are not restricted to livestock, poultry, field crops, horticultural crops, soils, plant and animal diseases, pests, agricultural engineering, agricultural meteorology, land use, water quality, economics and marketing. This research goes on at a variety of locations throughout the province. There are five colleges of agricultural technology and three research stations. There are also five research stations which are managed by the University of Guelph. In addition, there are the provincial pesticide residue testing laboratory at Guelph and the economic branches in Guelph and in Toronto. For 1981-82, the various operations had a combined budget of over 27 million.

4:50 p.m.

Before I go on about various activities, I would like to mention some of the other developments that have shaped agricultural research in Ontario. Through the early part of this century, agricultural research was conducted by the federal and provincial governments as well as by the private sector.

In 1932, we saw the beginning of the formalized system for exchanging information gained through agricultural research. In that year, the national advisory committee on agricultural services was formed, made up of senior representatives of both the federal and provincial government departments and agencies. The committee's job was to provide information and to advise the ministers of agriculture.

In 1963 and 1964, the committee was reorganized and became the Canadian agricultural services co-ordinating committee. In its expanded role, CASCC was given the job of reviewing governmental and institutional services which affected agriculture in Canada. This included the examination and co-ordination and adequacy of all agricultural services.

CASCC itself is divided into several sections with several duties. As members can well imagine, with the many areas of agricultural research, a number of specialized committees have been made necessary. These include the animal research committee; the agricultural economics research committee; the agricultural engineering research committee; the field crops research committee; the food research committee, which also covers six areas consisting of beverages, confectionery products, snack foods, dairy products, fruit and vegetable products. and grain and oilseed products; the horticultural crops research committee; the pesticide control research committee; and the soil, water and air research committee.

The very number of committees and subcommittees goes a long way to show the various ways in which agricultural research is proceeding. We should mention that the Ontario agricultural services co-ordinating committee to which the various committees and subcommittees report is responsible for the integration of all agricultural research service programs in Ontario: federal, provincial, university and industry.

The Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario, which I mentioned earlier, consists largely of members representing agricultural producers and agribusiness, and directs Ontario government funding for research through the ministry. The report on the co-ordination of agricultural research in Ontario states, quite rightly, that no research is effective until its results can influence the industry.

The participation of the food industry is essential at many levels, starting with the determination of research needs and research priorities, and ending with the dissemination of research results in a form that is usable and appropriate to whatever group it affects, whether it be producers, processors or consumers.

We should all recognize that everyone benefits from research: producers, processors and consumers; and that the benefits of research can be passed on to the rest of Canada and in many cases the rest of the world. We must not forget the nature in which agricultural research pays off. In just about every case, a fairly large commitment of money and manpower, not to mention knowledge, must be applied for a research project to succeed. Most of the time, as well, research projects last for a few years, and when completed successfully take a few more years to be put into practice.

Because of the size of the investment required, individual farmers cannot fund very much significant research. Farmer participation and funding of research can take place only through some of the marketing boards which may have sufficient resources to provide research and educational funding. I bring to the attention of the House the example of the Ontario Vegetable Growers' Marketing Board that has undertaken this over the past few years.

Private industry research does occur, but this is the kind of research which is restricted to a specific range of products as defined by the company involved and to products which hold commercial value and can also be protected from imitation. Perhaps one of the best examples we have in Ontario of that is the seed corn industry which, with government co-operation, does a tremendous amount of its own research in developing new varieties and varieties that will produce more for the farmers of Ontario.

I point out that over the past 40 years in which the Ontario corn committee, which met last week in Chatham, has been in existence, the average yield of corn in this province has gone up about one bushel per acre per year. This is through much effort, a lot of it through the private research of industry with the co-operation of the provincial and federal governments.

We should conduct a periodic review of where agricultural research has taken us and the future directions in which research should proceed. Perhaps through our debate here today we can conclude we are in agreement as to how research is proceeding.

If not, then perhaps we can identify some of the areas that merit attention and proceed accordingly. To aid with a few more observations, I would like to point out some examples of research advances we have all benefited from and say a few words about the return we are getting from our investment.

Over the past 30 years, Ontario has benefited from a variety of research advances, some of which I have already mentioned. One area in which we have made significant advances is in the yield and the spreading out, by shorter season hybrids, of the corn crop across Ontario to areas that never knew anything about growing corn. The same thing is done in livestock, in the soybean crop and almost any crop one wants to mention.

Because the majority of corn goes for feed, other research scientists worked on developing nutritious, more efficient farm feed rations, the improved control of parasites, better grain, silage and storage facilities, some of the management techniques of computers coming in to giving least-cost rations and that type of thing.

Some of the examples of successes have resulted in substantial increases in soybean yields. Concerning the costs involved here, one study over a 23-year period from 1950 to 1972 compared the cost savings and the input costs. The benefits were calculated with a six-year time lag to represent the average time for new research discoveries to be put into practice.

Research expenditures were considered to consist of all the provincial research, agricultural education and production extension expenditures, combined with the private and federal research expenditures in Ontario. In constant 1978 dollars, this came to $1.488 billion.

The value of input saved -- capital, land, labour and additional feed inputs -- came to $45.79 billion. After discounting for interest rate, the results are nearly 40 to one return on investment.

The big advantage with the returns on agricultural research investment is that all segments of society benefit and the savings are not only applied to one particular group. That study concluded that in order to maintain the same ratio on investment, agricultural research funding would have to increase by three per cent over the inflation rate.

I would like to take a moment to point out one of the things the government has shown it is doing for agricultural research in the future. That is the announcement of a $14.5-million investment by the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development in the farm equipment and food processing technology centre for Chatham.

With the centre, Ontario stands to gain a competitive advantage over the next few years in food manufacturing. Given the past returns on investment, we can look forward to benefits valued in millions of dollars, not only for our producers and processors, but for the consumers.

I would be pleased to listen to other members of this Legislature with their ideas on how research can be improved and how we can talk about it. One of the reasons for the resolution this afternoon is that we might form a committee to look far more thoroughly into agricultural research, federal, provincial and industrial.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against the adoption of the resolution in the member for Chatham-Kent's name, fully cognizant of the importance of research to the agricultural industry.

However, at this particular time when farmers are suffering the effects of economic pressures that have brought this country to a standstill, I find the priorities of the member who introduced this resolution most strange.

5 p.m.

The resolution from the member for Chatham-Kent leaves me little faith that he or the Conservative government fully understand the real problems which currently exist in the farming industry. I submit that with many farmers going bankrupt, and others being forced to sell their businesses while they still have some equity remaining, an examination of private and public sector funding of research for agricultural development by a select committee of this Legislature is not a priority at this time.

Furthermore, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, which is the main spokesman for farmers, does not consider increased levels of research to be a priority, a fact which is obvious as one reviews the OFA briefs dating back to 1979. There was very little mention made in these briefs of increased expenditures for research.

If the member for Chatham-Kent were more familiar with the programs of the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, he would know that there has been in existence since 1962 a body known as the Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario, a body of very capable people which inquires into current research programs, and which recommends areas which should be given priority.

Surely the Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario is well aware of the research that is being done both by the government and the private sector. If the government has additional money to spend in the agricultural industry, it would make more sense to apply the money where it is most needed. This certainly excludes, in my opinion, the funding of a group of members of the provincial Parliament to run around the province to study the research that is being done by both the public and the private sectors.

It is not a lack of research that is prohibiting farmers from producing to their maximum potential, or to the maximum capacity of the soil; rather, it is a lack of incentive due to a lack of financial support for farmers who very often must contend with low commodity prices and high input costs. In addition, it is due to a lack of sufficient security for farmers from existing stabilization programs, and a lack of adequate processing plants, storage facilities and markets.

As I reviewed the OFA agricultural food strategy for Ontario, I made particular note of a comment on page 3 of the report. I would like to read it into the record:

"We have in Canadian and Ontario agriculture and food industries, a well-developed body of technological know-how, the equal of the best in the world. It is most important that we use it to generate greater output. Unlike most other industries, agriculture and food do not have to import advanced technology, it is here.

"It is also a fact that increasing output in food production is achieved with a minimum of import leakage, that is few additional imported components are required. As a result, the entire return for such output expansion accrues to domestic production components."

It must be obvious to the members that new technology is generally preceded by a tremendous amount of research and this comment in the strategy report would indicate to me that there has been good research in agricultural development.

I also reviewed the OFA emergency task force report. I again noted the comments which were made on page 32 of that report. If you would permit me, Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote the first two paragraphs on that page:

"The federal and provincial governments share responsibilities for agriculture. This makes it difficult to establish appropriate roles for each level of government and to evaluate the degree of assistance given to agriculture by the various governments. Each government has its own spending priorities.

"Historically, the federal government has been perceived to be strong in research, regulatory work, marketing and income transfers. Usually, provinces have been strong in formal education, extension activities at the farm level and marketing. Some provinces also supported significant research activities. In recent years, the lines of responsibility have become less clear as both levels of government began to pay attention to areas formerly looked after mainly by one level of government. At the same time, considerable differences developed between provinces as to program emphasis."

You can sense from what I have just read, Mr. Speaker, that there has been a good deal of research done, and it is continuing to be done.

Acknowledging the fact that recommendation 6 in the same report makes brief mention of research, one cannot help but notice that research is lumped in with marketing, financial management and agribusiness. One finds, in reading the report, that far more emphasis is placed on financial management and marketing than on research. This is not to say that research is not important, but it is certainly not the factor that is limiting agricultural growth in this province at this time.

Referring to the minister's opening statement on the agricultural expenditure estimates, which are currently before the House, I note that he takes a great deal of pride in the research expenditure portion of his budget. Let me quote from the minister's opening remarks: "Ontario's agricultural record has been an outstanding one because of the research and development that has produced new strains of crops, superior breeds of livestock, and new technology to plant and to harvest our produce. My ministry ranks research and development as a high-priority area and has, at about $30 million, the highest research budget of any provincial government in this country."

Yet the member wants us to form a select committee to run around the province seeing what research has been done. To my way of thinking, that is ludicrous. Before this government spends money on a select committee to look into research, a study that I am sure is being done on a continuing basis by the Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario, it could direct any additional funds it may have to the implementation of a long-term agricultural strategy that would pave the way for self-sufficiency in regard to the supply of food that can be produced in this province.

Of course, we will require, on a continuing basis, research into increased deficiencies of production, processing and distribution of food, but, more important, at this critical time in the history of our country, an agricultural strategy would provide more financial stability for the food producers of this province. It would also help to improve marketing opportunities, both at home and abroad. This is an area that has been somewhat neglected until relatively recent times.

To maximize the use of the technology that is available at present, and the research that has been done and is being done, farmers need interest rate assistance programs and increased availability of long-term, medium-term and short-term financing at reasonable rates of interest. Farmers need larger amounts of capital grant money for such things as modernization of buildings, equipment, erosion control, pollution abatement, energy production development and other projects.

Farmers need more money for tile drainage, since this is the most effective method of making a dramatic improvement in crop production efficiency. Farmers need better stabilization programs to provide sufficient security to encourage them to make major long-term management decisions.

Farmers need more markets, both at home and abroad, and more adequate storage facilities. Farmers need improved rating systems and more processing facilities.

Give the farmers these tools and they will do the job. Agricultural growth in this province, if indeed more food is needed, is dependent upon far more important priorities than research at this time.

I would, therefore, encourage the government to establish such priorities for the agriculture and food industry and to apply its budget to these priorities. Surely, in a period of restraint, an expenditure of money on a select committee to examine levels of private and public sector funding for agricultural research and development cannot be considered a priority by this government. It is for this reason that I cannot support the resolution.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I am a bit puzzled by the resolution we have before us. I do not know whether the member, in introducing this motion, feels we need a special committee to look into research in agriculture because it is in such bad shape, or because he and other members of his government know so little about what the research branch of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food is doing.

I am not sure whether he is playing a game, along with the member for Elgin (Mr. McNeil), who introduced a motion we debated three or four weeks ago with regard to complimenting the government on the increase in their farm product sales from Ontario and on the missions they are sending throughout the world at tremendous cost to the taxpayers of this province; or whether he, along with or in opposition to the member for Elgin. has something to do with the leadership aspirations of the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell) and wants to build him up. In this case, it seems to me, the member must be trying to tear him down.

5:10 p.m.

Mr. Wrye: Is he supporting Mr. Timbrell?

Mr. Swart: No, I do not think he can be; not when he introduces a resolution that by implication condemns the agricultural research work of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food; or perhaps -- and I think this is probably the real reason, and this was mentioned by the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) -- this may just be a diversionary tactic of the government, it may be to divert attention from the real issues farmers are currently facing.

Like the member for Huron-Middlesex, this certainly is not my priority. If I was going to bring in, as the agricultural critic -- or yes, if I was sitting on that side of the House -- a motion on an agricultural issue, it would not be to deal with this. Where are their priorities? I would be bringing in a resolution to deal with the critical financial situation faced by the farmers in the interest rates they must meet.

I am not sure whether the member was in the House the other night when I started my opening comments on the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. If he was, he will know I pointed out that from 1972 to 1976, when the farmers of this province had an average net income of $650 million, the interest they were paying on indebtedness was $131 million.

That was just one-fifth, or 20 per cent, of their net income. Do members know that by 1981 -- and these are the figures from the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food -- the interest on indebtedness had risen to $633 million and the farmers' net income was $835 million? It had gone up from 20 per cent to 75 per cent of the net income.

Does the member know what his own ministry estimates the net income of farmers will be this year? It will be $655 million, down from $846 million last year. This year, their interest payments on indebtedness will exceed their total net income.

Can the member bring in a resolution dealing with research, appointing a special committee of this House to investigate research? Why would he not have brought in a resolution dealing with that problem; especially when the ministry said they set up $60 million to assist the farmers this year and they have only paid out $13.5 million? And he is bringing in a motion to deal with research.

Mr. Wildman: Maybe the member should research the banking system.

Mr. Swart: Yes. I wonder why he would not have brought in a motion to deal with import replacements; he mentioned it in his speech. But again, if he was here when we debated the resolution by the member for Elgin, he will know I brought forward statistics from both Statistics Canada and from OMAF which showed that the gap between what Ontario was paying for imports and was getting on exports had increased from $600 million to $900 million since 1976.

The ministry itself says that it can close that gap by at least half. It should close that gap. What government has been in power? Why would they not bring in a resolution to deal with that very serious situation, which affects not only the farmers in the sale of their produce, but our balance of payments with other countries and the ability of consumers to consume their own goods here? Isn't that pretty important? Then they bring in this resolution on research.

If I were to bring in a resolution at this time with regard to agriculture, I think it would be in regard to income stabilization for agriculture. The minister has proposed that there be the one third, one third and one third, and that we have a national income stabilization plan for farmers which is adequate; but we have not accomplished that yet.

As the member for Huron-Middlesex has noted, that income stabilization is not anywhere near adequate the way prices have gone down this year. It is unbelievable the way prices have gone down. I have a list of them here: 10, 15, 20, 25 per cent, the prices of farm produce have dropped this year. We need income stabilization. Why would they not have brought in a resolution so that we could debate that tremendously important issue in this Legislature?

I suspect that this is a bit of a façade that the Minister of Agriculture and Food is building up about the federal income stabilization. I think it is a façade because if it is going to be meaningful in this province and across this nation, it is going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Even in this province it would probably cost at least $250 million to bring the farmers up to even where they were a couple of years ago.

I suspect he is not willing. When he pays out only $13 million on this huge indebtedness of the farmers, I do not think he is going to put even one third of that kind of money into it. I suppose we could not debate that here, but if we really want to talk about an issue that is important to the farmer and the agricultural community, we have to talk about income stabilization.

We have to talk about fair prices to the farmer and about the markup. Mr. Barrie, the president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, pointed this out in his speech about 10 days ago. He condemned the tremendous markup on the farmers' produce and the unfair share that the farmer receives. We have to deal with that. That is one thing our debate on the fair prices commission was all about.

Although this is a motherhood resolution, and I do not disagree with it, I suggest that I am going to vote against it. All it will do is name another committee, dominated by Conservatives, to bring in a report which will do what the Conservatives want it to do. But, most of all, this motion is diversionary; and I cannot distort my priorities and this party's priorities by voting for this resolution instead of facing the real issues the farmers have to put up with at the present time.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Lincoln.

Mr. Stokes: And Balls Falls.

The Acting Speaker: And Balls Falls.

Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the member's resolution. The purpose of the resolution is not to set up unneeded committees but to determine if we are well directed in our thrust in agricultural research.

There are certainly many research areas which hold a great deal of promise in which work is currently in progress. I would warn the member for Huron-Middlesex, the agriculture critic for the Liberal Party, who spoke against this resolution, that he should not suggest that we throw the baby out with the bath water. I think he has distorted the intent of the resolution to some extent. Perhaps he would be satisfied with the archaic practices that are prevalent in some of our endeavours. Perhaps he would be satisfied with that level instead of Ontario being in the forefront of agricultural research, as it always has been. It is the same member who questioned and criticized the then Minister of Agriculture and Food about a year ago for the lack of his ministry's funding to support research at the University of Guelph.

5:20 p.m.

Perhaps there are members who feel that input from comparative outsiders also would be constructive in identifying new areas for research activity. In this case a committee would provide one avenue to identify such new areas. One area not strictly related to funding of research that could also bear some examination is the supply of researchers.

The Globe and Mail of October 24, 1982, mentioned a study by Michael Jenkinson -- a former colleague of mine, by the way, at the University of Guelph -- who is now dean of the University of Guelph, which says that over the next five years there will not be sufficient Canadians to fill the agricultural research positions.

The member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) has suggested that some of us on the government side do not know what the government is doing in agricultural research. I would like to enlighten that member. I want to give some examples of what we are doing in agricultural research in one specific area.

One area in which the average person on the street would be interested is the improvement in the quality of Ontario wine. I am sure you, Mr. Speaker, having the kind of delicate palate that is sensitive to these kinds of things, will be very interested in what I am going to say about Ontario wine and the research that is currently going on.

Wine is the only agricultural product to which virtually every major newspaper in North America devotes at least one column every week. A considerable amount of wine research activity is centred in Vineland Station, which contains the headquarters of the production and breeding unit and the horticultural products laboratory of the Horticultural Research Institute of Ontario. This famous institution, by the way, is in the provincial riding of Lincoln.

In the area of growing wine grapes the Ontario Grape Growers' Marketing Board and the Ontario Wine Council, with help from the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, are working together to create a series of grape standards for the province with the advisory and research effort provided by Dr. Richard Chudyk of Vineland Station.

The existence of standards will allow the industry to produce better quality wines and act as an incentive to the growers to improve the quality of their grapes. Wineries in the future therefore will be able to base their purchases on the quality of grapes shipped rather than on just the weight of grapes, as is the existing system.

I want to go on to explain some of the details of this program and how it is proposed to implement it. It is thought that the best measure of the quality of wine grapes is their sugar content, but with about 900 growers in Ontario and some 60 varieties, progress in setting standards cannot occur overnight.

I want to refer to some remarks by Dr. Tibor Feluki in a publication called Highlights of Agriculture Research in Ontario, where he talks about chemistry in aid of grape breeding, with reference to the Vineland grape flavour index. Dr. Feluki says:

"The quality of a wine is primarily determined by its bouquet and flavour. Connoisseurs of wine get really carried away and describe these qualities in almost ecstatic terms: 'subtle nose,' 'flowery bouquet,' etc. Unlike any other fruit product, the number of wines with distinctly different flavours is enormous. As well as the 8,000 varieties of grapes grown around the world, growing conditions such as climate, location, seasons, cultural practices and stage of ripeness at time of harvest and the variations in flavour and quality are virtually unlimited. Different wine-making practices and ageing are further sources of variation in the flavour of the end product, wine."

It is expected that the pricing system for quality will be applied at first only to the six most important cultivars grown in Ontario. To accomplish this goal, an annual evaluation of grape quality is required to create a data base of crop quality over a period of several years. The Horticultural Research Institute of Ontario has therefore gathered information on all grape shipments to wineries made in the Niagara region. This information includes such specifics as delivery date, weight and vineyard location.

Grape varieties delivered to wineries have also undergone chemical analysis, and chemical data are being put together for various zones in the region. With all the gathered data, the laboratory is trying to put together a computer analysis of the entire grape crop sold to wineries in Ontario. Grape analyses have taken place over the past four years. The results have been published in the report entitled Ontario Grape Crush Analysis. I am sure the member for Welland-Thorold has read that report in great detail.

This past year the industry and the Ontario Grape Growers' Marketing Board decided to conduct trial quality testing of one type of grape, de Chaunac, since de Chaunac represents about 10 per cent of Ontario's wine grape harvest and was named after a Bright's winemaker. I am sure my colleague the member for Chatham-Kent, being a very experienced grape grower, is familiar with that particular cultivar, as you no doubt are, Mr. Speaker.

The role of the research station is to ensure the impartial testing and analysis of the deliveries. At this time the data have gone to a computer centre to be analysed and we can soon look forward to its first results. As mentioned earlier, it will take some time to set standards. Average grape quality can vary from year to year. However, we can look forward to a time when the grape growers in the industry will be asking this government to formalize grape standards through legislation. I am sure we can count on the support of all my colleagues in this House when that time comes.

We in Ontario can be justly proud of the fact that this is the only jurisdiction on this side of the continent that is working on developing wine standards. Even though work is going on in this area, and will continue to go on for some years, some wine growing jurisdictions to our immediate south have expressed interest in the work carried out here. It would therefore seem possible that the standards set for Ontario may be adapted by some US states.

Grape breeding at the Horticultural Research Institute of Ontario goes back to 1913, when a breeding program was established to satisfy market demands at that time. After 1947, when French hybrids were injected, it became possible to breed wine grapes for increased winter hardiness and diversity of flavour. Successful Vineland hybrids based on these and other hybrids have been bred: such as Vincent, bred in 1949; Ventura and Veeblanc, the later being named in 1977. Promising seedlings from breeding in 1961, 1963 and 1964 are currently in large-scale commercial trial tests.

The Acting Speaker: Time.

Mr. Andrewes: I would just urge all honour- able members to support this resolution.

5:30 p.m.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to enter this debate. I have been a bit perplexed wondering how to deal with this resolution, because we have had both members on the Conservative side make very good speeches extolling the virtues of agricultural research. They have gone through a whole litany of the great advances we have made in those fields, which result in a small percentage of the consumers' income going to buy their food, down now in the neighbourhood of 16 per cent. We have no argument with the value of agricultural research. The member for Lincoln (Mr. Andrewes) has me so enthralled with wine production that I think I shall go home and plant a few more acres than those I already have.

When we look at the resolution, it is telling us that we need a select committee to go about the province and in their great wisdom decide what should be done by private industry, what is being done by private industry and what should be done by our own facilities.

As the member for Chatham-Kent told us, we had a piece of legislation introduced back in 1972, the Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario Act. That body was created then, and I happened to have the honour of being one of the appointees to that original body. I served on it for six years. That was a very fine experience. I enjoyed it very much, until at the end I did not go along with what the government wanted so they kicked me off.

Mr. Riddell: They found out you were a Liberal.

Mr. McGuigan: They found out I had a mind of my own and kicked me off. In spite of that, during that whole six years --

Mr. Andrewes: You made a great contribution.

Mr. McGuigan: Yes, it was.

Mr. Hodgson: It wasn't this side of the House that kicked you off.

Mr. McGuigan: No, it was Bill Stewart. But in spite of that, during those six years that I was on that body, there was only one time that we had interference from outside people, political interference. The minister came in and authorized some research in an area that proved to be a waste of $250,000. However, that was his prerogative; he was the Minister of Agriculture and he did it. I thought it was pretty significant that there was only the one case in which that happened.

The job of the agricultural institute is to co-ordinate and decide where work shall be done. Prior to 1962, they were giving money to various institutions, and those institutions would decide themselves what they wanted to do. It is only human nature that they tended to empire-build in their particular college or university.

In 1962, we went to the European and British system, which was to create institutes whose job it was to take on this work; then they would farm out the money to whoever they thought could do it best and wherever they thought it could best be done. It did not all necessarily go to provincial institutions; it could go to outside institutions.

Their job was also to pull together the overall question of whether we could even afford to do certain work. When we looked at the United States and the huge investment they have in agricultural research and the facilities they have at Beltsville, Maryland, where they do the basic research, the bricks and mortar of the advances they make, we had to decide at times that we would leave that job to them.

When the work is done in Canada, there is a split. The federal Department of Agriculture does the basic research, largely at Ottawa but also at other stations throughout Canada. The role left to the province is largely a matter of adapting that basic research, using it and putting it into practice and doing such things as the member for Lincoln was talking about, the introduction of varieties and so on.

The member did not say anything about the role of private industry, other than to mention it. He gave quite a talk to the member for Chatham-Kent about the corn breeding companies, but when one looks into the history of the great advances that have been made in corn production, they were as a result of basic research conducted in the United States by the US Department of Agriculture and the university system. There was a chap down there who later became vice-president of the United States, Henry Wallace. He took a lot of the credit for this, moved it out into the field and established one of the big corn companies. The point is that the basic research was done by government.

If members will think back to 1971, we came very close to having an agricultural disaster in North America when all the corn companies, in an effort to do away with pulling the tassels off the female plants, went to a system of male sterility --

Mr. Watson: You had better explain that to some of us.

Mr. McGuigan: Yes. I will. I am not going to go into the details. They found male sterility in only one element of plant breeding and, to stay competitive, every corn company in the United States and Canada adopted corn with that element of male sterility. They did not know that at the same time the element also carried a susceptibility to southern corn leaf blight. In that year we came very close to having the type of famine that occurred in --

Mr. Nixon: Egypt.

Mr. McGuigan: In Egypt -- seven years in a row, was it not?

An hon. member: And in Ireland.

Mr. McGuigan: And in Ireland in 1844 and 1845. We came very close to that, because we had an almost total lack of corn up to the middle states: from there on, we had a partial crop. To correct that, we had to go back to the colleges and universities for the element to start over again. We know now that we have to maintain some diversity in our corn crop.

I related that little story to tell members that while I certainly do not want to fault the corn companies for the research they do, they do it on the short term and for their own competitive reasons. We have to maintain a system whereby we have the basic work done at the universities.

We do not need a select committee to travel this country to know that we are falling behind in the level of research. I checked the figures from 1967 to 1982 and found that while the actual number of dollars increased three and one third times -- the money allotted to Ontario agricultural research went up three and one third times -- the actual number of people involved came down. For a number of years there were 320 people; and then we dropped to 305 in 1975 and 1976, and to 300 in 1977. Later figures are not available. That tells me that in dealing with inflation and with the tremendous costs of modern research material, we have not been keeping pace.

We know what the weaknesses are in our Ontario agricultural system. We need more research in marketing, as people have mentioned, We need more research in controlling soil erosion. In addition, and this may sound a little strange, we need research to see how we will deal with plenty. For the past number of years we have all been concerned with the shortages of food, but today we have excesses. We used to think of India as being a great country deficient in food. Today India produces enough food for itself and is even in an export position --

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

Mr. McGuigan: I believe the members have failed to show why we need this select committee. While they have made a great story for agricultural research, they have missed their own main point.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, how long do I have?

Mr. Speaker: About two minutes.

Mr. Wildman: I was a little concerned when I read this resolution as to what its main purpose was. My only conclusion was that the honourable member must be following in the footsteps of his colleague the member for Lambton (Mr. Henderson), the "Lorno" school of political advancement. It seems to me what the member is looking for is a chance to go on a junket in memory of the tile drainage committee.

Mr. Watson: Is the member against the benefits of tile drainage?

5:40 p.m.

Mr. Wildman: We believe agricultural research is very important and we are very much in support of it. We are concerned, however, about the tendency of this government to rely too much on the private sector and to provide grants for private sector research to the detriment of academic institutions such as the University of Guelph, and to the detriment of the hands-on research to find new methods to ensure the preservation of the family farm.

I have a list of grants under the provincial lottery research awards program by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. I note that the largest ones are to Bright's Wines for the development of a new grape; to Libby McNeill and Libby of Canada for a production feasibility study of chick peas in southwestern Ontario for processing; to Canada Packers for the development of economical diets for the growing rabbit; Viapac Corp. Ltd. for freezing and nonsurgical transfer of cattle embryos, and so on.

Only one of a long list went to what appears to be a family farm operation. It was to study the possibility of growing strawberries in August and was for about only $7,700, whereas the grants to the private sector are in the range of $50,000 to $225,000.

There are a large number of other grants to the University of Guelph, and I believe one to the University of Toronto, but in our view we should be relying far more on academic institutions to carry out research which, as the member who spoke previously said, would not be designed purely for the astronomical advancement and marketing of a particular private company, but would produce new strains and new technologies which it would then be possible for the ministry to transfer to the family farm.

In our view, this proposed resolution is just smoke and mirrors, as the phrase goes. It is a way of trying to show that this government, or the members of this government who vote for this, are in favour of agricultural research and in favour of agriculture, when what they should be doing is encouraging the Minister of Agriculture and Food to stop his campaign across the province, shaking hands and lining up delegates, and get busy doing something about what is really hurting agriculture in this province; namely, the high interest rates and the inability of the farmers to get a decent price for their produce so that they can remain viable and in operation.

We believe there should be stabilization programs and a real commitment by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food in this province to improve the economic viability of our farms. This resolution does not even deal with that. What it means is that a bunch of back-benchers would be able to waste money travelling around looking at what wonderful research is taking place, rather than dealing with the real problems of agriculture. For that reason, I will be voting against it.

Mr. Watson: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the members on all sides for their comments, some of which were complimentary and some of which were not.

I really introduced this to get some comments. I was pleased that the member for Huron-Middlesex, after hearing what the member for Lincoln had to say about the research into wines, thought maybe he should change his mind and go on this select committee or subcommittee, because it is important that we do look into research as it is.

The member for Algoma brought out some of the things I was not able to, the fact that there is research funding from this government going to private enterprise. It would be a good thing if this government looked at how that combination of money to private enterprise and money to provincial research and federal research is being used.

I appreciated the comments of the member for Kent-Elgin, particularly his comments on southern corn leaf blight. I would agree that is one example where research took off in one area. I remember that very vividly. I was in the centre of it as the agricultural representative for Kent county and a member of the Ontario corn committee.

There are other things currently in danger in the province. For instance, the majority of winter wheat grown in Ontario is now down to one variety. That may not be such a good thing. If something similar were to happen to that crop we would have a disaster. That crop would be wiped out. That is one of the things that long-term research would be looking at.

I understand why the member for Welland-Thorold is puzzled. He looks at some of the things in the short run. Perhaps when he has had a little more experience in his capacity as the agricultural critic he will realize we have short-range problems but we also have long-range problems.

In agriculture we get only one crop a year and the government has to look several years ahead, particularly with research. The way to do it is to look at it in terms of spending money in the long term. Money spent today in research is not likely to produce results of a practical nature for 10 years down the road; therefore, it is in the interest of this House, in the interest of the government and the interests of farmers and consumers of this province, to take a long-range look at agricultural research in the province.

We have several examples. The member for Northumberland (Mr. Sheppard) did not get a chance to speak but I know he wanted to talk about some of the things the Ontario Milk Marketing Board has done in research in this province. Therefore, I would hope the members would support this. If the members feel agricultural research is not important, as some of them have indicated, that is their choice. I would hope to have support for this because I believe it is important in the long run.

I am pleased the people, particularly those opposite, were able to say that research was in good shape in Ontario.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Regarding imputing statements to other members that were never uttered, no one who spoke in this debate said agricultural research was not important.

Mr. Watson: No, I ended up with that, if the member had listened. I appreciated the comments that the member thought agricultural research was important and he thought it was in such good shape in this province. We certainly appreciate those comments from all members opposite because we --

Mr. Bradley: Then we do not need a select committee.

Mr. Watson: That is the member's choice. I happen to think we need a select committee on this. It was brought up on the tile drainage research. At that time the members said that tile drainage was important, but look at the emphasis that it gave to tile drainage in Ontario. Such a select committee could provide that stimulus for agricultural research in Ontario.

Interjections.

Mr. Sheppard: I would like to support my colleague, Mr. Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to rise and say a few words in support of his resolution because the agriculture and food industry is the backbone of a country. Approximately one in five jobs are related to the agricultural field.

We are most fortunate in Ontario that we grow a variety of food products, but most unfortunate that we are not self-sufficient in agriculture. There is no reason why Ontario should have a food trade deficit of $1 billion. Some provinces have too short a season to grow fruit and vegetables economically, but Ontario could increase production substantially and reduce its import bill.

Our basic problem, however, is the Canadian climate. The growing season is too short and variable, thus leading to a glut of local produce for a few weeks in midsummer before stocks dry up for another year. The uncertainty of the Canadian weather makes life particularly difficult for vegetable canneries. A few days of rain at harvest time will throw delivery schedules completely out of whack, forcing canneries to shut their plants one week and then throw away the food the next.

I hope all the members of this assembly will support my colleague the member for Chatham-Kent.

5:50 p.m.

FAIR PRICING ACT

The House divided on Mr. Mackenzie's motion for second reading of Bill 184, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Allen, Breaugh, Bryden, Cassidy, Charlton, Cooke, Foulds, Johnston, R. F., Lupusella, Mackenzie, Martel, McClellan, Philip, Renwick, Samis, Stokes, Swart, Wildman.

Nays

Andrewes, Ashe, Barlow, Bernier, Boudria, Bradley, Brandt, Breithaupt, Conway, Copps, Cunningham, Dean, Eakins, Eaton, Edighoffer, Elston, Epp, Eves, Fish, Gordon, Gregory, Haggerty, Henderson, Hennessy, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Jones, Kennedy, Kerr, Kerrio, Kolyn, Lane, Leluk;

MacQuarrie, McCaffrey, McCague, McGuigan, McKessock, McLean, McMurtry, McNeil, Miller, F. S., Miller, G. I., Newman, Nixon, Norton, O'Neil, Peterson, Piché, Pollock, Ramsay, Reed, J. A., Reid, T. P., Riddell, Robinson, Rotenberg, Roy, Runciman, Ruprecht, Ruston;

Scrivener, Sheppard, Shymko, Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Sweeney, Taylor, G. W., Taylor, J. A., Treleaven, Villeneuve, Walker, Watson, Wells, Williams, Wiseman, Worton, Wrye.

Ayes 18, nays 77.

6 p.m.

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

The House divided on Mr. Watson's motion of resolution 37, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Andrewes, Ashe, Barlow, Bernier, Brandt, Cassidy, Dean, Eaton, Eves, Fish, Gordon, Gregory, Henderson, Hennessy, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Jones, Kennedy, Kerr, Kolyn, Lane, Leluk, MacQuarrie, McCaffrey, McCague, McLean, McMurtry, McNeil, Miller, F. S., Norton;

Piché, Pollock, Ramsay, Renwick, Robinson, Rotenberg, Runciman, Scrivener, Sheppard, Shymko, Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Taylor, G. W., Taylor, J. A., Treleaven, Villeneuve, Walker, Watson, Wells, Williams, Wiseman.

Nays

Allen, Boudria, Bradley, Breaugh, Breithaupt, Bryden, Charlton, Conway, Cooke, Copps, Cunningham, Eakins, Edighoffer, Elston, Epp, Foulds, Haggerty, Johnston, R. F., Kerrio, Lupusella, Mackenzie, Martel, McClellan, McGuigan, McKessock, Miller. G. I.;

Newman, Nixon, O'Neil, Peterson, Philip, Reed, J. A., Reid, T. P., Riddell, Roy, Ruprecht, Ruston, Samis, Stokes, Swart, Sweeney, Wildman, Worton, Wrye.

Ayes 51; nays 44.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure but I do not think the first two people over on that side of the House voted. I could be wrong.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, they did.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate the business of the House for the balance of this week and next.

Tonight we will continue with Bill 179.

Friday we will continue with the estimates, Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

On Monday, December 6, in the afternoon and evening, continuing agriculture estimates.

On Tuesday. December 7, in the afternoon and evening, we will first deal with second and third readings of all private bills on the Order Paper and then continue with Bill 179.

On Wednesday, December 8, the usual three committees will meet in the morning: justice, general government and resources development. In the afternoon, the House will sit to consider concurrences on the estimates of the ministries of Correctional Services, Tourism and Recreation, and the Environment, and the Justice secretariat and the Solicitor General.

On Thursday, December 9, in the afternoon. private members' ballot items standing in the names of the member for Halton-Burlington (Mr. J. A. Reed) and the member for Leeds (Mr. Runciman). In the evening, we will continue with Bill 179.

On Friday, December 10, we will continue the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

I have been informed also, Mr. Speaker, that you and the Clerk are in receipt of a no-confidence motion, and I would like to point out to the House that this will be considered on Monday afternoon, December 13. It is a motion from the New Democratic Party, which I believe will be on tomorrow's Notice Paper.

The House recessed at 6:07 p.m.

December 2, 1982