Hansard Transcripts 1982-Dec-03 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, on November 23, 1982, questions were raised by the member for York South (Mr. Rae) and the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) concerning the protection of workers involved in a renovation project at MacKenzie Hall in the city of Windsor.

Interjections.

Mr. Renwick: Can we have a little order, Mr. Speaker, for this important statement?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, so we may hear this important statement from the Minister of Labour.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: My officials have completed their investigation, and I have reviewed their report. This detailed report sets out the chronology of action taken to protect the workers. The report has been provided to the honourable members who raised the matter. On the basis of material available to me, I conclude that the ministry officials have taken all proper and reasonable steps to ensure that the workers on the renovation project have been and are protected.

I might observe that I have received correspondence from both the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 543, and the city of Windsor, in which it appears that the parties are not in complete agreement on the various issues. In addition, there have been several work refusals, the most recent refusal occurring on Tuesday.

It appears there may be a problem of communication and co-operation between the parties. Accordingly, I have asked that the industrial relations adviser of the occupational health and safety division, Mr. Cliff Basken, arrange a meeting with the parties together with the construction health and safety officer involved in an attempt to resolve any outstanding issues to the mutual satisfaction of the parties. I understand that Mr. Basken now is setting up that meeting. I shall be pleased to inform the members who raised this question of progress as reports are received.

LEAD ASSESSMENTS

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I have a second statement. As honourable members know, I have been concerned for some weeks now about lead levels in the air of the spray painting booth of department 951 at the Westinghouse Canada Ltd. plant on Beach Road in Hamilton. Last Monday I provided honourable members opposite with a report on this situation. The report referred to air sampling tests in the booth that had been conducted on October 28 and for which we were awaiting results.

These results were provided to me on Wednesday night. They showed that lead levels in the air in the booth while green paint was in use on October 28 were significantly higher than the province's lead regulation permits. Further, the respirators in use at that time did not afford full protection to the workers in the booth.

As a result, officials have visited the plant. An order has been issued that all persons working in the spray painting booth be equipped with powered air-purifying positive pressure respirators whenever they are working with a lead-based paint. This order was issued at approximately 3:45 p.m. yesterday. These respirators will be required until it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of both the joint health and safety committee at the plant and my officials that ambient-air lead concentrations in the spray paint booth do not exceed the level below which protection is afforded by a simpler type of respirator.

I might add that workers in the spray paint booth have been wearing respirators approved by the National Institute for Occupational Health and Safety of the United States. The more sophisticated respirators covered by yesterday's order provide the added protection that is required consistent with the lead levels that have been found when some lead-based paints are sprayed.

I also wish to add that at 2 p.m. today senior officials from my ministry's health and safety and mediation areas will be meeting with the joint health and safety committee at the plant and with members of the plant's senior management. This meeting has been called to review in detail the progress that is being made at the plant in designing and implementing a comprehensive lead-control program. I have instructed my officials to provide me with a report on that meeting as soon as possible, and I expect immediate and effective progress as a result.

Just before leaving for the House today, I received a memorandum from the assistant deputy minister of the occupational health and safety division in respect to Westinghouse and some comments that were allegedly made by the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel). I think it is important that I read this memo.

"This morning's issue of the Toronto Star contains a story entitled 'Province Misled on Lead Pollution, MPP Charges.' The third paragraph of that story, referring to a report prepared by me and referred to by you in the Legislature last Monday, reads as follows: 'It is "so erroneous I conclude she'" -- referring to me -- '"set out to be deliberately misleading. She has to go," Mr. Martel, MPP for Sudbury East, said yesterday.'

"The statement that I set out to deliberately mislead you or anyone else is, of course, totally false. I am providing you with a chronology of events, which establishes that all of the information in my possession was given to you in the report. I wanted you to know that I regard a false allegation of this sort as a very serious attack on my personal and professional integrity. Indeed, I believe it is defamatory, and I will be seeking legal advice as to my legal rights."

SALES TAX GRANT FOR SENIORS

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the honourable members of an important event in the government's annual program of tax relief for Ontario's senior citizens.

Mr. Martel: Here we go again.

Mr. McClellan: Are you going to have more phone lines this time?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: I am pleased to announce that today the Ministry of Revenue is mailing more than $44 million in sales tax grants to seniors throughout the province.

Mr. Nixon: Can you get them out by Christmas?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: With Canada Post under the indirect jurisdiction of the Liberal government, I cannot guarantee it, no.

Mr. T. P. Reid: It is being run by a former Ontario Tory deputy minister. No wonder.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: They needed something to help it along, that is for sure.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps we can address these matters under the next item of business. Please proceed with your statement.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I apologize.

In total, 886,671 seniors will receive the $50 annual grant payment well in time for Christmas, thanks to the goodness of God and Canada Post, of course.

Full information about this mail-out is provided by another in our series of constituency office information bulletins, which are also being mailed today. In addition, advertisements will run tomorrow in all Ontario daily newspapers. I remind the members this morning, however, that those who have turned 65 during the last three months of 1982 will receive their cheques in January.

I also point out that as a natural result of our enthusiasm for this program, some 1,500 sales tax grant cheques were mailed early. These cheques are dated today, December 3, 1982, as are the cheques that were released this morning.

10:10 a.m.

As well, I wish to take this opportunity to briefly update the members about the mailing of the 1982 property tax grant cheques for seniors.

As of the end of November, we have processed 524,188 applications, which has resulted in the production of 519,187 cheques averaging $240 each. This means the average annual entitlement for seniors is close to $480 per household,

Of the 546,171 applications received thus far from seniors, 21,983 require additional information which has been, or is in the process of being, requested from the seniors concerned.

CORRECTIONAL STAFF PRACTICES

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I wish to draw something to your attention and perhaps get a ruling on it.

I realize that, unfortunately, the authorities at correctional institutions have the responsibility or the right to open mail from anybody, including members of the Legislature, in advance of it actually being delivered to the inmate. But I point out to the Speaker that I sent a letter to a constituent in the Guelph Correctional Centre on November 23, and the letter was returned to me as sender because the constituent happened to be on parole. In the meantime, the officials at Guelph Correctional Centre took the opportunity of opening the letter, and presumably reading it, before they returned it to me.

I believe that is a breach of my rights as a member of the Legislature, and I would like you to investigate that.

Mr. Speaker: I am not sure whether it is, but I shall take it under advisement.

ORAL QUESTIONS

JOB CREATION

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Premier as the senior member of the government in the House today. The Deputy Premier is no doubt aware of the disgraceful unemployment figures that came out this morning. I assume he has been briefed and is prepared to speak on behalf of the government this morning and tell us what the government's response will be. He is aware that the rate now is 12.4 per cent in Ontario, up from 11.7 per cent last month. We now have 564,000 unemployed, up from 532,000 a month ago, an increase of some 32,000.

The Deputy Premier is also aware there was a job creation program in the budget of last May that created some 33,000 jobs, according to the governments own figures. The great majority of those jobs now have been created. The new program is going to create 38,000 jobs. That is roughly one month and six days of new unemployment. Will the minister now agree with me that is a totally inadequate response to the greatest crisis of our time?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important to underline the fact that it is a response. The Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) and the Premier (Mr. Davis), in answer to questions from the Leader of the Opposition, have pointed out from time to time the initiatives that have been undertaken by this government within the realm of its responsibilities as well as its willingness to co-operate with the senior government in programs it is prepared to become involved in.

Although one talks about the specific numbers of people who will benefit immediately by such programs, be they those initiated by this government or in partnership with the senior level of government, there are a number of spinoffs that are very important considerations as well.

I know -- and the honourable member is a fair man -- no one is particularly pleased to read these monthly reports with all the social implications they bear. There is not a member of this House who would not be delighted to see this trend reversed and who would not want to be associated with any programs that would create that climate. Governments themselves do not create jobs. The Treasurer and the Premier have pointed out that we want to be party to and in co-operation with programs that create the climate that will provide the incentive for some improvement in the economic situation.

At this stage I might remind the honourable member that there are many places in this province where the burden is even greater. I come from an area, shared by other members of this Legislature, where the rate of unemployment is far too high; it is the second highest in the province. There is no question that is of great concern because of the social consequences and the assault on human dignity. We all would want to be party to doing some things along those lines, and the Treasurer and the Premier over a period of time have listed those particular initiatives with which we have been associated and through which we have provided some resources.

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will refer the balance of this answer to the Minister of Labour, who is just back from Ottawa, having been in the company of the Treasurer signing an agreement with the government of Canada related to some programs that would create some employment opportunities here. Perhaps the Minister of Labour could provide the House with some details on that as well.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, it is correct that the Treasurer and I were in Ottawa yesterday to meet with the Honourable Lloyd Axworthy, the federal Minister of Employment and Immigration, to formally sign the documents between the federal government and the province. Combined with the joint initiatives and the separate initiatives of the federal and provincial governments, it brings the amount to be allocated to job creation in Ontario at this time to $280 million. This is new money, not money that was spent by the Treasurer earlier this year.

What impressed me most about our meeting yesterday, and there were senior officials in attendance as well, was the absolute feeling of co-operation and good spirit between the two levels of government. So often we seem to be going in opposite directions, but there was no doubt at all yesterday, and in the meetings I attended prior to that, that there is a very genuine effort on the part of both levels of government to put all other matters aside and to concentrate on the problem.

The other key point that came out of the sessions yesterday related to the fact that there were original indications that it might be into January or so before these programs could be commenced. The feeling yesterday was that that was too late; that we had to start doing some things right away, instead of waiting for the appointment of an advisory committee. It was felt we should let that come along in due course but get on with the job of creating new jobs.

The Deputy Premier touched on one very important point; that is, while 38,000 jobs will be created up front, and that is an impressive figure, there will be a very definite ripple effect, since goods and services will be required for these projects, and that will result in further employment or stabilized employment in other areas.

There is another point that should be made. Every effort will be made, or preference given, to projects created in areas of greatest need. The Deputy Premier referred to the St. Catharines area, and we can also refer with no pride whatsoever to the situations in Windsor, Sudbury, Sault Ste. Marie and so many other parts of the province. But efforts will be made to get into those areas, perhaps even a little more quickly than into some of the others.

Mr. Peterson: I will go back to the Deputy Premier. I appreciate the spirit in which the Minister of Labour has responded to this question. Presumably there is some co-operation now between this government and the federal government, and I appreciate and respect that. But I go back to my friend the Deputy Premier, who says it is not his responsibility because he just has to create the atmosphere for jobs.

Given the fact that this government is the first one there to take credit if any jobs are created, but the first one to disavow any responsibility when jobs are lost, will the Deputy Premier not agree with me that, as a policy matter of the cabinet, in which he is such an influential opinion leader, his government's response of $280 million in total in conjunction with the federal government is inadequate and not enough in the circumstances?

Given the 38,000 jobs he will create by his figures, given the numbers today that he is aware of, given that we are employing 160,000 fewer people than we were a year ago, given that we have the poorest and worst job creation record in Canada -- worse than Newfoundland -- will he not agree that the response by his government and the federal government is totally inadequate? We need emergency programs putting more money into job creation, not in January but right now.

10:20 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I think it is important to underline that as far as this government is concerned the number one priority is this whole area of job creation. This government will continue to fight for the people of this province to ensure the opportunities we feel our people deserve.

I repeat what the Treasurer has already listed from time to time: the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development initiatives, the technology centres and the retraining programs. In the spirit of the agreement to which the Minister of Labour made reference, we recognize the role of government as the catalyst or the stimulator, as the case may be, to make sure we do our share in co-operation with other levels of government, be it the government of Canada or the municipalities. The municipalities certainly will be willing partners here. We should not overlook our work in the private sector as well.

It is through this concerted action that we are doing all we can together, recognizing it is not the responsibility of any one area of the economy, but of working together in a concerted, national effort to get the people of Canada back to work.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I was interested to hear the Deputy Premier's announcement today of a dramatic shift in government policy and that job creation is now the number one priority.

If that is the case, how can the Deputy Premier explain that while the Minister of Labour and the Treasurer were signing an agreement in Ottawa with respect to the $280-million program, the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Mr. McCaffrey) was on his feet in this House announcing cutbacks in the field of the arts and culture which are going to have the impact of losing jobs and of creating unemployment in that field? How can the government announce a job creation program on one day and on the very same day announce cutbacks that are going to create unemployment?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I was here to hear that answer, and the Minister of Citizenship and Culture was very careful to point out that there were negotiations going on in the allocation process. Whatever the final results of those discussions are, they will be announced in due course.

I am surprised the honourable member is attempting to suggest this government has just discovered the need to attach high priority to this very important social emphasis. The whole spirit behind Bill 179, which is before this House at present, is the preservation of jobs in a sensible way. This group ignores that.

Mr. Martel: How many jobs does that create?

Hon. Mr. Welch: It saves jobs.

Mr. Martel: Tell that to the teachers in Sudbury.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Tell that to the people at Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario in Ottawa.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the unemployment rate in St. Catharines-Niagara and certain other communities is extremely high -- in St. Catharines-Niagara I believe the figure is 19.1 per cent -- will the Deputy Premier indicate to the House whether his government is giving consideration to providing the regional municipality of Niagara with special additional funds so it may meet its additional obligations in view of the pressures placed on its social services department as a result of the unemployment funds being exhausted?

Is he contemplating a certain figure in terms of unemployment? Is that one of the strategies the minister is looking at? Is he contemplating a certain figure, say 14 or 15 per cent, whereby the province would kick in substantial extra moneys in order that these municipalities can meet what are going to be some pretty genuine needs this winter?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in the answer to the main question, I am sure my friend the member for St. Catharines shares my concern, and that concern is shared by all of us who represent constituencies in the Niagara area, with respect to the very high rate of unemployment there. Certainly those municipalities, whether the regional municipality or the local municipalities, will be dealing with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) with respect to those aspects of the program signed yesterday in Ottawa as they will affect our area.

We will work together with government to make sure we get our share of those particular funds in the spirit of the whole program, which is job creation. We are hoping to keep people away from any sense of dependency on the social service delivery system. As well, I am sure we will address the question of social assistance requirements as those needs persist.

Mr. Peterson: Before I ask my second question, Mr. Speaker, may I correct the record? I inadvertently made a mistake. I apologize to the honourable members.

I said there had been 160,000 jobs lost since a year ago. That is not correct. There have been 160,000 jobs lost since last May. In fact, there have been 216,000 jobs lost since a year ago in November. So in the May figures it says we have lost almost 1,000 jobs a day since the last budget. I knew members would want to know that. I apologize.

GAINS PAYMENTS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the Provincial Secretary for Social Development?

The provincial secretary is no doubt aware of the Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto report just released which says that elderly women living alone in Ontario are among the poorest members of our society. Indeed, 60 per cent of women over 65 are living below the poverty line. She is also no doubt aware that we on this side of the House have been pressing for improvements in the pension system for some considerable period of time. She is no doubt aware of the royal commission's recommendations, as well as the select committee's recommendations.

Given that we have a situation where the median income of an elderly woman between 65 and 74 who lives alone is only $5,645, and as she ages over 75 her median income drops to some $4,964, will the provincial secretary not agree with me and the select committee that we should move immediately in Ontario to improve the single rate for the guaranteed annual income supplement up to 60 per cent of the double rate? Will she not agree that is an emergency right now?

Given that the social planning council said the only real gains in income that this group of disadvantaged people have had in Ontario are through the federal guaranteed income supplement, does that not indicate to the provincial secretary that the federal government has at least tried in that area but that the provincial government's response has been totally inadequate and that we should respond today to meet the needs of this important, but disadvantaged, group of people?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the report. I am also aware of the recommendations of the pension commission, and all those recommendations are being considered. I do not think we should move ahead today. We have a great many problems that have to be addressed; this is one of them. This government, in these very difficult economic times, is attempting to meet the needs of as many people as possible.

I am aware that there are difficulties, but I do not think the difficulties are as great as the Leader of the Opposition may be attempting to suggest they are. He talks about the income, but he does not talk about the other programs that do provide help to those who are in particular distress.

I recommend that the Leader of the Opposition be very cautious in putting too much attention on this particular group. There are many groups in society today who are facing really difficult times. This is one group we are attempting to help, and we will be addressing that problem as the economic climate improves.

10:30 a.m.

Mr. Peterson: I am having trouble with the Provincial Secretary's answer. Is she saying that they are not in very much trouble or that everyone is in bad trouble, or what is she saying -- that she is not prepared to respond, or that she does not agree that these people, as the social planning council is saying and as a lot of other groups have said, are probably the most disadvantaged group in society and she is not prepared to respond? Is that what she is saying?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: As usual, the Leader of the Opposition attempts to change everything around and to put words in people's mouths. I do not need the Liberal leader to put words in my mouth. I know whereof I speak.

I have a great deal of involvement with senior citizens in the province on a continuing basis, much more involvement than the Liberal leader has. I would suggest to him it is one of the few groups in this society from whom I have very few complaints. They are very grateful for the help they do receive.

Also, I would like to remind the Liberal leader that --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: -- they find it extremely offensive to have people suggesting they are very disadvantaged and that they are living below the poverty line. The Liberal leader, I would suggest, should think very carefully before he labels the senior citizens of this province as being disadvantaged.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, lest we draw the conclusion that Marie Antoinette is alive and well and living in Queen's Park, I wonder if --

Interjections.

Mr. Rae: She should think through carefully the implications of what she has just said.

Could the minister tell us whether or not she would agree that a possible implication of what she is saying this week in response to questions about poverty among senior citizens, particularly women who are living alone, and what she said last week in response to questions about young people who are left alone by the government, facing the challenge of unemployment, is that there are so many groups out there that need help that this government is unable to respond to any of them? That seems to be the clear implication of what the minister is saying. Could she clear that point up?

Can she give us one example of a group that she has identified as needing special help and where she has indicated that she and her government are prepared to act?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, I do not feel I have to be defensive about this government's attempt to help those in need in this province. I think we have a very good record. If the honourable member would come down out of that fairy-airy castle he dwells in, and just look at the problem a little more realistically, there are a lot of people who are facing difficult times in this province at this moment.

Mr. Swart: You found that out, did you?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I have known it for many years. I did not have to come here and be told by the opposition. I am very much aware of it, and we are doing everything we possibly can to alleviate those problems.

Mr. Peterson: Frankly, I find the response from the superminister responsible, absolutely bloody outrageous, that she would sit there and try to defend all this nonsense that she knows is incorrect, when the select committee, her own members and the social planning council agree, and there is not anyone else who has studied the problems who does not agree, that there is a serious income problem for people in that area. She knows it.

Would she not agree with me that we would be far further ahead to get rid of her ministry and give the money to people who deserve it and at least do something worth while in this province?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I would suggest to the honourable leader that perhaps he might take a good look at some of the reports from the Metropolitan Toronto social planning council. If he gets all of his information from them, perhaps he should go out to the general public and have an opportunity to meet with them.

Ms. Copps: We hear it every day in our constituency offices.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I do too. I have a constituency office too. Very rarely do I have complaints from this particular group in society.

JOB CREATION

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Labour and manpower; he is right here.

Mr. Foulds: He's seen the moving finger.

Mr. Rae: I shall wait for him.

Mr. Speaker: You may place the question. I am sure the minister can hear it on his way in.

Mr. Rae: It is sometimes more difficult to do two things at once. I would just as soon that we concentrate so that I shall have the full attention of the minister.

I should like to ask the minister a question: In his capacity as the Minister of Labour and manpower with respect to the agreement that he signed yesterday, the minister will know that the 38,000 jobs that are being created are being created over an 18-month period, which is a little over 2,000 a month. The minister will also know that in November the province lost 32,000 jobs.

Does the minister not think that, given the juxtaposition of those two figures of just over 2,000 jobs being created and 32,000 jobs being lost, the government has an obligation to completely rethink its approach to job creation? Does he not think the unemployment problem has become much more severe and much more dramatic than the government may have been thinking at the time it was planning to sign this agreement?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I think I responded to much of what the honourable member has said in my remarks earlier as a supplementary to what the Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch) was saying. I said at that time, and I will repeat it, that real priority has been given to getting this job creation program off the ground in a hurry and getting it working immediately.

Now, while I say this, members have to bear in mind that there still are some logistics problems in doing just that. But we are optimistic that we will be able to get a lot of people involved in a short period of time and, as I also said earlier this morning, I think the 38,000 figure is misleading, because that figure is going to have a ripple effect down through the economy. Goods and services are going to be required for these various projects, and that in turn will have a positive effect.

Mr. Rae: The only figures we have to go on, misleading or not, are the figures that have been given to us by the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller); he did not give us any other figures. If the government wants to give us other figures with respect to its projections on employment and unemployment, I am sure all members will be glad to receive them; but we have not received those figures yet.

Given the statement by the Minister of Labour's predecessor, now the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie), when the government's severance pay legislation was introduced some time ago, that this legislation was the best in North America, how does the minister feel about the fact that a summary of the information over the last 21 months shows 3.6 per cent of laid-off workers have received severance pay pursuant to the legislation -- less than four per cent? How does he feel about that figure? Does he really think that is worthy of a government? Does he really think that kind of severance pay provision in any way meets the cost of unemployment for unemployed people?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I am a little confused as to the percentage the member has quoted. He is telling me that less than four per cent of those laid off have received severance pay? Surely he is not saying that.

Mr. Wildman: Yes, that is what he is saying.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Well, I find those figures a little confusing, and I would want to do some research before I tried to answer that question.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, supplementary to the first question put by the leader of the New Democratic Party: Having regard to what the minister has told us about the signing in Ottawa yesterday, which brings Ottawa and Toronto together in this job creation program, and having further regard to the truly tragic figures today of unemployment now at 12.4 per cent in Ontario, can the minister indicate in specific terms to the unemployed people of the Ottawa Valley and elsewhere how and when they will be able to opt into this new federal-provincial arrangement that was born, we hear, out of great and happy co-operation? How and when can they specifically know how they can take advantage of the new arrangement?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I think the key point is that this program is designed for exhaustees, those people whose benefits have expired under the Unemployment Insurance Act. I also understand that procedures are being set up now at the various federal manpower centres across the province to register these people and to start to put them in the right positions as far as their skills and talents are concerned for the projects that will be developed.

10:40 a.m.

Mr. Rae: The minister may understand my sensitivity about figures but I want to come back to him and simply say that in the 21 months under review, the Ministry of Labour has identified 51,452 indefinite and permanent layoffs. Of these, some 3,400 employees were eligible for severance pay under statute, i.e., 6.6 per cent. However, only 1,865 received severance pay under the provincial statute. Those are the figures, from the 21-month review that we are using in terms of severance pay.

As a final supplementary question: Will the minister at least look into these figures with respect to severance pay? Would he not agree that even if it was double that amount, eight per cent, it would mean that 92 per cent of those workers that have been permanently or indefinitely laid off are not receiving severance pay under statute in this province? Does the minister not think that is a disgraceful situation? Does he not realize it puts the full burden and full cost of unemployment on the unemployed people themselves?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: In response to the member I will look into the matter, as he has requested.

GASOLINE PRICE DIFFERENTIAL

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question of the Minister of Energy. It relates to him and his responsibility as the minister responding for Suncor.

He will, I am sure, know that the Ontario Energy Corp., in its annual report referring to the government's investment in Suncor, said: "The purchase gives Ontario an important new opportunity to get a seat at the table in the rapidly changing oil and gas scene. The timely additional information gained will provide greater opportunities for Ontario to influence national energy policy-making and to protect the interests of consumers."

Since the government now would appear to have a seat at the table at Suncor and it is there, according to its own report, in order to help consumers, I wonder if the minister can tell us whether he has given any instructions to those who are sitting at the table of Suncor with respect to the differential between leaded and unleaded gasoline?

Has there been any investigation started on this question? Is the minister aware of any investigation? Could he tell us anything about it?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, perhaps in response we should get one or two things correct. I am not the minister responsible for responding to the House for Suncor. I am the minister responsible for replying in the House for the Ontario Energy Corp. and, as part of the portfolio of the Ontario Energy Corp., there is an interest in that integrated oil company.

Indeed, in the spirit of the earlier questions with respect to job opportunities, I might remind the member that because of the involvement of Suncor and the decisions taken with respect to the upgrading of the refining facilities in Sarnia, there has been a tremendous economic spinoff throughout this whole province.

We have benefited greatly in job creation because of the decision, which was a very positive decision of that company, to get involved. When one thinks in terms of the almost I billion worth of investment by this particular company and the spinoff throughout not only Ontario but other parts of Canada, I think Suncor is to be commended for at least showing some confidence in this country and spending in the way it does. There is a tremendous spinoff.

I would also expect that this company, in which we have some interest, would follow the request of the government of Canada. I understand the federal minister responsible has indicated he is carrying out an investigation in this whole area.

In response to the questions that were directed earlier this week to my colleague, this company would co-operate and provide whatever information is required as part of that investigation.

Mr. Rae: The Deputy Premier has really missed the boat on this one, I am afraid. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in Ottawa has said the exact opposite of what the Deputy Premier has just reported to the Legislature. The federal minister said he would not order an investigation and that is why we have been pressing the minister here to order an investigation. That is the reason we have been addressing questions to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie).

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: In that context, I would like to ask the minister this: Will he call in the chairman of the Ontario Energy Corp. and ask him immediately to launch an investigation into the price differential between leaded and unleaded gasoline as it affects Suncor and consumers of Suncor?

If Suncor's market share is consistent across the province and if the price differential between leaded and unleaded gasoline is the same, as it would appear to be by a series of random phone calls we have made, Suncor's own share of this ripoff is somewhere between $6 million and $8 million. If the purpose of having bought into Suncor is to protect the interests of consumers, why is he not prepared to take an interest of behalf of consumers with respect to this particular issue?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I can only underline the response which my colleague the provincial minister shared with the member in response to his questions earlier this week. He has written to a federal minister. He leases the responsibility there. This company, along with any other companies, will certainly respond to whatever directions are issued by the federal minister.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, it appears that even the New Democratic Party has turned on the minister and is seeing the folly of that original purchase of Suncor. I think I hear that from my friends on the left.

Given the fact the investment the minister brags about would have happened anyway as it was in the works before he got his paws on it, given the fact that his window on the industry has turned out to be opaque, given the fact that in the first nine months of his proprietorship it has now cost taxpayers $52 million out of pocket, given the fact that the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch) says we do not have enough money for worthwhile projects such as helping the province's seniors, and given the minister's constant refrain --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: -- that we do not have enough money to create jobs, would the minister not agree with me that it is time to sell Suncor and put that money into projects that do something for Ontario and create jobs here?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, that is hardly supplementary to the question proposed by the member for York South. The member for York South is quite legitimately interested in looking after the consumers of this province and has asked a question in the interests of the consumers, only to provide the Leader of the Opposition with the opportunity further to tighten the noose around his neck in so far as this investment is concerned.

Let us take a look at what has happened in Ontario since it acquired its interest in Suncor: jobs, jobs, jobs in this province. Let us face it; let us look at the business that has gone on even in ridings represented by members of the official opposition. Look at the contracts Suncor has entered into in Hamilton, Corunna, Acton, Burlington, Mississauga --

Ms. Copps: You have to be kidding. How can you say that?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Welch: -- Hamilton, in the riding of the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps); Oakville, St. Catharines, Stratford and Brampton. I just cannot take all the time of this House. There are 51 contracts; hundreds of jobs in Ontario funded by contracts awarded by this company.

To try to confuse the people of this province by talking in terms of a capital investment, a one-time investment, to cover long-term operating costs is really stretching things. Against the background of so many other companies backing away from projects to which they were committed, Suncor has stuck by its commitments. There is almost $1 billion worth of investment and many contracts. We can list ridings all through Ontario that have benefited by these significant events.

Is that not responsible corporate citizenship?

10:50 a.m.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, when you are considering the awarding of Emmys this year, I would like you to consider that performance.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: On a point of personal privilege: I would like the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the statement he attributed to me that this government did not have enough money for social services. I would like to remind the member and the other members in this House that this government spends two thirds of the total provincial budget on social services in this province.

Ms. Copps: Since we are into points of privilege, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: We are not, because that was not a point of privilege.

Ms. Copps: I have a point of privilege with respect to the statement made by the Deputy Premier that he was bringing help to places like Hamilton, which has an unemployment rate of almost --

Mr. Speaker: That is not, with all respect, a point of privilege.

Hon. Mr. Welch: If I could just respond to that, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: No, you cannot. Order.

Interjections.

Mr. J. A. Reed: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: Would you not consider the notion that the Deputy Premier was trying to convey in his answer, that the 25 per cent investment in Suncor somehow specifically --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for York South, final supplementary.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I am not misleading the House.

Mr. Speaker: Did the member for Halton-Burlington say that? I would ask you to withdraw it if you did say it.

Mr. J. A. Reed: Mr. Speaker, I asked you if --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will take a look at Hansard myself and make that determination.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, if the Deputy Premier can name all the constituencies where Suncor has made investments and contracts, he will also know he can name all the constituencies in this House where consumers have been purchasing leaded and unleaded gasoline at rates that a three-volume report would indicate are far higher -- I am speaking very slowly so the minister will be able to understand --

Interjections.

Mr. Rae: The fact remains, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: Would the honourable member place his question, please.

Mr. Rae: I am going to place my question. The fact remains that consumers are paying at rates that have been described as a ripoff in a three-volume report. I would like to ask the minister whether he is prepared to act on behalf of consumers with respect to Suncor? It is a very simple question.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I appreciate the care that the honourable member has taken to make sure that I understand the question. In fact, I did understand the question and I reminded the Leader of the Opposition what the main question was to which he tried to slip in his supplementary.

I point out to the member that my colleague the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie) has been very explicit as to where he sees the responsibility in this matter. I assure the member that once that responsibility is discharged, whatever the implications are with this company, they will have to be taken into account. Suncor will have to obey whatever the law is.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health. In response to a question earlier this year on hospital occupancy rate, the minister stated: "On any given day in this province we have approximately 85 per cent capacity in our hospitals. This is about what it should be." A little further on, he said, "The question is what level prevents the situation of having a chronically filled hospital on one's hands, which would be the case if they were running at about 95 to 100 per cent." I am sure he remembers that.

The minister is no doubt aware of the most recent occupancy figures for hospitals in Metropolitan Toronto for the month of September, which show that close to half the major hospitals in Toronto were between 94.9 per cent and 100 per cent occupied during this time and, by his own definition, chronically filled.

How could the minister leave this House with the impression that hospitals were not experiencing problems with overcrowding when the facts do not show it?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, as the honourable member no doubt is aware, September and October are far and away the busiest months of the year in all of our hospitals simply because both patients and medical staff prefer not to have or to do surgery during the summer months. That indicates the pressure that is brought to bear by the elective surgery that is conducted in the province because, as I said, both hospitals and their patients do not want to have operations done during the summer.

The net consequence of that is that in September all the patients that could have had surgery during the summer but chose not to now prefer to have their surgery, and a lot of the doctors and other medical staff who took holidays in July and August are back at work in September trying to accommodate the backlog that has built up over that period of time,

I have to presume that hospitals which have enough money to operate and have enough beds during the September period when they are trying to clear up what is a self-made backlog in terms of the demand for those beds, are managing their beds in such a way that that the 90 per cent or 95 per cent capacity which is extant for four to five weeks is one which they feel they can manage without threatening patient care.

If any hospital in this province feels it cannot accommodate that backlog in September without affecting patient care, then the hospital's responsibility and obligation should be called into question. That would mean that because it had chosen to allow people to go on holidays and cancel or not schedule surgery during the summer months in order to have it all occur in September, there was some threat to patient care.

I do not believe hospitals are doing that. I believe that they are managing their beds in a responsible way. If the member is suggesting that the postponement or nonscheduling of operations during the summer to accommodate both medical staff and patients is being done in an inappropriate way, she should tell me in what hospitals she thinks that is happening and we will certainly look into it. Until the member is in a position to say that, I think it is rather facetious of her to suggest that because during September and October accommodations are made to look after the summer delays and the summer crackdown of activities, consequently more beds are needed or more hospitals need to be built. That would really be a facetious idea.

Ms. Copps: It is obvious the minister has not had an opportunity to examine the figures, because if he has he will know.

I refer him to a statement he made at the same time: "If one is going to run a rationalized health care system throughout the province one has to accept that some people will make that conscious decision to wait for a bed in a particular hospital with a particular surgeon rather than go literally 10 or 15 blocks away and get an equally competent physician, who no doubt would have beds available on the same day in another hospital."

Could the minister tell this House how far he thinks the patient would have to walk in the city of Toronto if he needed surgery at Northwestern General Hospital, which figures show was 100 per cent occupied? He could have walked to Humber Memorial Hospital and found an occupancy rate there of 99.1 per cent. He could have further walked to York Finch General Hospital and found a rate of 95.2 per cent. All three hospitals were chronically filled by the minister's standards.

In fact, most hospitals north of Bloor and Danforth were chronically filled -- North York General Hospital. 99.1 per cent; Sunnybrook Medical Centre, 96.1 per cent; --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Ms. Copps: -- Scarborough General Hospital, 95.4 per cent. etc.

How far does the minister think a person would have to walk in the city of Toronto to be able to get the surgery that he suggests they can get by walking 10 or 15 blocks to another hospital?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That was a delightful recitation of the new figures sent to the member by her staff, but may I say she is still reading September figures. Unless the member is prepared to stand up and equally recite the figures for July and August, which she knows very well --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member keeps chattering. How many months does she want to take? She wants to slant the figures by taking what are admittedly -- her colleague sitting to her right, who used to be the Health critic, knows very well that what I am saying is absolutely accurate. Is that not so? He knows that September, October and November are the busiest months of the year. The member knows she is taking the busiest months. She knows she would be putting the proposition that the Ministry of Health and the government of Ontario should take taxpayers' money to build more beds and more hospitals, so that during three months of the year capacity would not be over 90 per cent, without expecting those hospitals to use their beds in a full and efficient way 12 months of the year.

11 a.m.

It would be important for the people of this province if the health critic for the opposition were to say she believes that patients should be as willing, and doctors should be as willing, to have surgery all during the summer months, all the beds open and all the activity remaining at the same level during the summer months, in order to better use the capacity of beds in the system, because that is really what we are talking about.

We are not talking any nonsense about not enough beds in the system. What we are talking about is the organization of them, the use of them, and whether it is right to have them dramatically underused in July and August to convenience everyone, and have, as the expense of that, the kinds of figures that the member is reciting for the busiest months of the year. She has to think through her proposition.

If the honourable member is saying to me that because of the September-October figures we should spend millions of dollars to add beds so we will not have that capacity rate in September and October, then she should say that. I think good management would require us instead to say to the hospitals, "Organize your beds in a more sensible way." That is the prudent thing to do, and that is what we are doing.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I was giving the figures for the month of September, but if he takes a look, he will find that the occupancy rates before the summer at Humber Memorial hospital were 97.3 per cent.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. That is not a point of order.

LEAD ASSESSMENTS

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour. Is the minister aware that in the statement which was prepared for Monday, it says the following, "Results showed the value to be below the time-weighted average for lead, using the grey paint which is the lowest lead level paint"; and is it not a fact that one of those was in excess, even using the lowest lead level, and in this statement it does not say that?

Second, further on in the same statement it says: "Taking these facts into account, on October 28 the ministry conducted further air sampling to determine work exposure to lead. The results are expected shortly." Is the minister not aware that the analysis was done by November 4 and the results were prepared in the Hamilton offices of the Ministry of Labour by November 18? Further, is the minister not aware that the company results taken on the same day were ready on November 19, and this statement was prepared on November 26, eight days after the results were known and seen by the health and safety committee?

Can the minister justify not having in this statement eight days after the results were known, the results of those October 28 tests which showed that the workers were exposed to lead levels 20 times higher than the threshold limit values we have established in this province?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the workers, if exposed, were not exposed at the level that the honourable member has indicated because of the time-weighted factor. In response to the major part of his question, there is a procedure that is followed as far as worker exposure to a chemical agent in testing is concerned. If he wishes, I can read that into the record, it is very short; and then I can read into the record also, and it is again very short, how those procedures were followed in respect of the Westinghouse case.

1. An occupational hygienist visits a plant and may request an air quality technician to take samples of a substance.

2. The technician visits the plant, takes a sample, sends it to the ministry lab.

3. The lab analysis is sent to the technician to complete his report, which is reviewed by his superior.

4. Once approved, the air quality technician's report is sent to the hygienist in charge for review, and if necessary for revision.

5. The hygienist prepares a report which is sent to the inspector who requested the advice for delivery to the company.

In the case of Westinghouse. and these remarks are of approximately the same length:

1. The request for sampling for lead in department 951 was made on October 28, as the honourable member indicated. The air quality technician conducted the sampling the same day.

2. Again confirming what the honourable member has said, the results were sent to the laboratory, which issued its report on November 4.

3. The air quality technician completed his preliminary analysis of the lab results on November 12 and reviewed it with his superior on November 15, and the report was complete, again confirming what the member has said, by November 18.

4. This report was sent to the hygienist on November 18. The hygienist in charge was working on the Canadian General Electric case on November 19 and was on field visits November 22 and 23.

On November 24 he drafted his report, which was completed and signed on November 26. A copy of this report was received by Dr. Robinson on November 30.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, the minister has in fact confirmed what I had suggested.

While preparing this report would it not have been wise, knowing the seriousness of the situation, to pick up the telephone and phone the Hamilton office to find out if the results were prepared, because by the 18th they were known?

Let me go on. In this same statement that is prepared it says: "It appears that the company has responded to the orders issued under the regulation respecting lead and has gone beyond the requirement for consultation with the committee to try and reach an agreement on the provision of the control program."

Is the minister aware (a) that the union is appealing the lead assessment, which is one of the regulations -- it does not agree with it; and more important, (b) that the only thing the union has been asked for to date is to make a presentation with respect to the lead control program, and that it was then summarily dismissed and there was no consultation or discussion with respect to those items under the lead control program that say the methods and procedures used or to be used in the processing, use or handling or storage of lead, and there are other requirements.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Martel: Finally, in the same statement, is the minister aware that it says Mr. Rajhans did not speak to the New Democratic Party? My researcher phoned him, identified herself, told him she was with NDP research and said she was looking into this lead; and we have a statement which says he never even spoke to us.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Referring to the last part of the question, obviously we have two points of view. We have a ministry official who has indicated his thoughts on this matter, and we have a researcher in the honourable member's office who has a different version.

Mr. Renwick: Not two points of view; they are contradictory statements.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Contradictory statements. The member is absolutely right, and I appreciate that clarification.

A lot of things have been said recently about the staff of the occupational health and safety division, and I am quite concerned about them, because these are dedicated, good people who are working to the very best of their ability to do a competent, efficient job. I am convinced they are, and it upsets me, it bothers me and I think it undermines the whole occupational health and safety program in this province when doubts are cast by frivolous statements on their abilities and on their dedication to the job they have and the job they are doing so well.

Mr. Foulds: Then you take the responsibility.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I was just coming to that.

What I was about to say is that rather than criticize the people in the occupational health and safety division at all levels from the senior level down to the inspector level or whatever the case has been -- because there has been a wide range of criticism by the honourable member of the public servants in the Ministry of Labour over the past few months -- instead of criticizing those people, who cannot answer back, I would suggest he continue to criticize me. It is my responsibility, and I will accept that responsibility without qualification.

Let me just respond to the other part of the question.

Mr. McClellan: If you had the slightest bit of integrity you would have resigned months ago.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, it is very easy to be a hero in opposition, particularly in opposition on that side. I do not want to inflame a serious situation and I will keep the comments I would like to make to myself.

11:10 a.m.

The point I wanted to make in direct response to the member opposite is I feel the meeting that will be held at 2 o'clock today will be an extremely productive one. We will have Walter Melinyshyn in attendance, a senior member representing the ministry. I believe he is respected even by the member as a good person. There will be Terry Mancini, who is a senior mediator and also well respected by those people across the way.

Those two people are meeting with the unions, management and the occupational health and safety committee. I am absolutely convinced we will be able to resolve this matter in the best interests of the workers.

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Education. I am sure all honourable members were pleased to hear of the changes to the school year which will be upcoming. In the statement she made yesterday, she indicated her intention to reduce the number of professional development days from 12 to nine. Both in the statement itself and in the highlights to follow, while there are specifications there are no indications of specific motivation.

Mr. Speaker: Question please.

Mr. Robinson: My question to the minister is simply this: she is quoted this morning in the Toronto Sun as saying teachers spend professional development days going to the track and skiing and that is why she is cutting them back. I want her to clarify for this House if that is her motivation in reducing those days?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I must admit to a slight sense of shock when I read that article in the Toronto Sun this morning because I thought I had been at pains to tell the honourable members that we had done a major survey involving a committee and a great deal of public consultation about the whole school year matter. In addition, we had expressed our concern within the ministry about the need for time spent in curriculum development, curriculum implementation and review of educational activities as a matter of real concern among school boards, parents and teachers in terms of the maintenance of competence of teachers.

However, in the scrum outside the door after I had made that perfectly clear, I was asked whether I thought it appropriate that teachers went to the track on PD days. I suggested I did not, but I did not think it happened often. It was suggested strongly that this was the reason for it. That is not the reason for the modification.

What we have done is provide uniformity in the number of professional activity days and some uniformity of the content of the professional activity days for the benefit of students within the system as well as for the benefit of teachers.

PETITIONS

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT BILL

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by 327 constituents as follows:

"A l'honorable Lieutenant-gouverneur et à l'Assemblée législative de la province de l'Ontario: Nous, les soussignés, sollicitons l'autorisation d'adresser la pétition suivante au parlement de la province de l'Ontario: Nous demandons aux Honorables membres de chercher à retirer le Projet de loi 127, loi modifiant la Loi sur la municipalité de l'agglomération torontoise."

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, I likewise have a petition to present on behalf of a number of my constituents with regard to the withdrawal of Bill 127, with which sentiment I agree wholeheartedly. There are 144 signatures on this petition.

[Later]

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present some petitions 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." As chairman of the government caucus, and on their behalf, I am tabling the petitions addressed to my caucus colleagues.

PARRY SOUND LAND USE PLAN

Mr. J. A. Reed: Mr. Speaker, from the good people of Golden Valley and Loring, Ontario, and on their behalf:

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, we beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows: We request that the honourable members oppose the land use program proposed for the Parry Sound district, as outlined by the Minister of Natural Resources."

INFLATION RESTRAINT BILL

Mr. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table a petition signed by 20 teachers from the St. Gabriel school in the Windsor area:

"We, the undersigned, the staff members of St. Gabriel school, request the Premier of Ontario, the Honourable William G. Davis, to request and seek the withdrawal of Bill 179, an Act respecting the Restraint of Compensation in the Public Sector of Ontario and the Monitoring of Inflationary Conditions in the Economy of the Province."

Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition, signed by 24 teachers from Immaculate Conception school in the city of Windsor:

"We, the undersigned teachers of Immaculate Conception school, wish to protest the gross injustice of Bill 179. It violates our rights under the United Nations Charter of Human Rights. We believe that a wage and price control would be acceptable if all sectors of the working economy would be considered equally. It has not been proven that singling out the public sector would create one new job for the people of Ontario. After years of struggling to obtain Bill 100, we do not want to lose it. We petition you to rescind Bill 179."

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

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

Your committee recommends that the fees, less the actual costs of printing, be remitted on Bill Pr47, An Act respecting the Ukrainian Cultural Centre.

Motion agreed to.

MOTION

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the standing committee on regulations and other statutory instruments be authorized to sit on the afternoon of Monday, December 13.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LAW SOCIETY AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Wells, first reading of Bill 199, An Act to Amend the Law Society Act.

Motion agreed to.

BARGNESI MINES LIMITED ACT

Mr. Williams moved, seconded by Mr. Lane, first reading of Bill Pr34, An Act to revive Bargnesi Mines Limited.

Motion agreed to.

11:20 a.m.

MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDINARY BUSINESS

Mr. Rae moved, seconded by Mr. Wildman, pursuant to standing order 34(a), that the ordinary business of the House be set aside to debate a matter of urgent public importance, namely the growing and intolerably high level of unemployment in Ontario, which has increased every month in 1982, where 728,000 persons are without work and without the prospect of work; the growing personal, social and economic costs associated with joblessness; and the failure of the government to make job creation its foremost priority and its failure to prevent the burdens of this social problem from being shifted to individuals and their families.

Mr. Speaker: I would like to advise all honourable members that the notice of motion has been received in its proper form and in time. I will be pleased to hear from the honourable member as to why he thinks the ordinary business of the House should be set aside.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, the basic reason for wanting once again to draw the attention of the government and of the House to this matter of urgent public importance is quite simply that there are 728,000 people who are really unemployed in this province, that this figure is unacceptable to us and that it represents a crisis in the economic and social life of our communities.

Unemployment is a problem that is far more severe and far more real a problem than the government has appreciated. The fact that the Premier (Mr. Davis) has scarcely been here this week and the fact that the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) was not here yesterday because he was in Ottawa and is not here again today are a very real indication of the contempt with which this government holds the opposition and the very real sense of complacency that has obviously taken hold on that side of the House.

Mr. Shymko: Broadbent would blame somebody else, not the Premier of this province.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Foulds: The only thing that is working on that side of the House is your tongue, Yuri.

Mr. Rae: The member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko) has indicated, as all members on that side are indicating, that the only government that is responsible for unemployment in Canada is the federal government; that is the position the member is taking. I want to make it very clear that we hold the Liberal Party responsible, we hold the federal government responsible; but we also hold the government of Ontario and the Conservative Party responsible.

Mr. Shymko: That is not what you said in the House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rae: This is a government that has resources, this is a government that has means and this is a government that has the responsibility.

Mr. Shymko: You never said that in Parliament.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will have to caution the member for High Park-Swansea that this is just unacceptable. The member for York South has the floor, and I recognize him.

Mr. Rae: I can understand, Mr. Speaker, why the member for High Park-Swansea is so uneasy and why other Conservative Party members are so uneasy. They have, as a government, completely underestimated and completely misread the seriousness of this situation.

The Treasurer's budget of May 1982 was a mockery of economic analysis and of understanding of what is happening in this province. When he announced his job creation program last week, even then he was saying that we were on the verge of a turnaround. I would like the members opposite to go back to their constituencies, as they will on the weekend, and ask the people in their areas whether they really think the province is on the verge of a great boom or on the verge of a great turnaround.

We on this side of the House are not at all pessimistic about the prospects of this province and we are not pessimistic about the people of this province. We are extremely pessimistic about the performance of this government and the performance of the Tory party with respect to the economy.

There is every indication this winter is going to be far more severe, far more difficult and cause far more social hardship than the government has yet to recognize. The Treasurer has even refused to come forward with figures as to what he thinks the unemployment rate is going to be over the winter. He has even refused to tell us how serious he thinks the problem is going to be.

He indicated in the statement he made last week that there were some signs that inventories are coming down. In fact, the evidence this week is that inventories are high and shipments have fallen again.

But to talk about the economy in those terms is partly to miss the point. All of us are facing the reality that there are far too many people in our province the government is simply not helping. There are far too many people who come to us day after day saying they do not have jobs. They are young people, old people, breadwinners and single-support parents. The government is not acting. Two thousand jobs a month for the next 18 months does not respond to a situation where in one month alone we have lost 32,000 jobs.

This crisis is bigger than the government ever anticipated. It is far greater than any analyst suggested might occur. If Rip Van Winkle were to come back after sleeping for 10 years, 20 years or 30 years and be told there was a 12.5 per cent unemployment rate in Ontario he would be shocked. That shock should be reflected in government action. That is why we need an emergency debate this afternoon.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, we in the official opposition will support the motion put forward by the leader of the New Democratic Party. We have had similar debates in the last little while and our concern was expressed by my leader during question period in his leadoff question about the size of the unemployment rolls in the province.

I have been in this chamber for 15 years and have been almost daily assaulted, except for the past few months, with the people opposite telling us what a great job they did in job creation and what a great job they have done in managing the economy.

It was all what the Ontario government had done, and all what the late Premier Robarts had done, and all what this Premier has done; yet at the first sign of trouble and danger we hear it is all the federal government's fault. I do not say that some part of this is not, but I do say that this government has a responsibility here in Ontario.

The federal budget for this year is close to $80 billion. At the federal level, as a percentage of the gross national product, they are spending 22.9 per cent of the gross national product. That is being spent by the federal government for programs across the country, from Newfoundland to British Columbia and northern Canada. It is spending something like 23 per cent of the gross national product across the entire country.

What we have in Ontario is a budget of some $23 billion and a total estimated gross provincial product of $128 billion. This means that we as a province are spending almost 20 per cent of the gross provincial product. If one looks at those figures and compares them, it is obvious the province not only has a role and a responsibility but also is spending a good share of the resources of Ontario and should be doing more for job creation.

11:30 a.m.

I was horrified, because I have a great regard for the Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch), to hear him say in his answer to my leader this morning that it is not the job of government to create jobs. Hansard will prove that this is exactly what he said. I thought that in their own modest, weak, timid way the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay), the Treasurer and the Premier had in fact been talking about direct job creation by the province. Yet we have the purported second in command saying it is not the job of the province to create jobs directly. What are we talking about when we talk about provincial and municipal works programs? What name should we have given to those programs that we have had in winters past when the province has had winter works programs, if they were not straight job creation by the government?

I can go through the record of unemployment as it has risen over the past year, but I think we are all aware of the situation. We are also aware that it is going to get worse. Surely the Premier, the Treasurer, the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) and everybody else over there have realized since June, which is usually the high-employment month in this province, that when unemployment rose in that month and has been rising every month since and before then, that this was not a problem that was going to go away and that the projections in the budget of May are not going to be realized; in fact, they are going to get much worse.

The Treasurer has stood in his place and told us he will not tell us what his projections are for unemployment in the next 18 months but that it is going to get worse. Yet we have seen nothing very concrete on the way except some talk, which the government is great at, of 36,000 jobs for the 752,000 people unemployed in Ontario. It is not sufficient.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, we certainly know we have a problem. Nobody relishes any of the figures that have come in during the last while. I think all of us can express real concern in that respect. We recognize that this is a major problem; there is no question about that. We heard the Minister of Labour speak about that this morning. We have heard the Minister of Energy, the Deputy Premier, speak about the concern that was expressed and the problems that are created.

There is no question that we have a major difficulty, not only in this province but also in an international setting. We have a major difficulty in Canada, in North America and with all of the trading partners we generally work with. This is a worldwide concern.

One of the problems one has to look at at a time like this is not always this question of how bad you are as a province, how bad your people are, how bad your governors are or how bad the whole situation is, because often that develops into a self-fulfilling prophecy when everybody is convinced how bad we are through the every-other-day requests for emergency debates that are proposed by the New Democratic Party.

People have to ask not how bad we are but is it not interesting that in the whole economic climate, which has been rather devastated in the last while, Ontario has reasonably stood out as an example of how to do it a little bit better?

Let me give an example. We are an industrial province. We have half the industry --

Mr. Swart: You are out of touch with reality.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Just a moment. Please, just bear with me.

Interjections.

Mr. T. P. Reid: We would like to hear Nine Job Walker.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Half the industry of Canada is located here and, in spite of the fact that we are an industrial province, our unemployment rate is such that we stand in better circumstances than most of the other provinces.

Mr. Foulds: Tell that to the unemployed.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Walker: The maritime provinces, British Columbia, Quebec, any of the other industrial provinces, indeed the industrial states that surround us, at times wish they had the problems we have. If they had as low an unemployment rate as we had -- ours is high, of course, but in contrast to them, it is low -- they would consider themselves very fortunate.

The question is not always how had we are but, rather, how in such a had situation we have turned out to be as reasonably good as we are in the process. We have undoubted difficulties caused by the world economic decline. I hear the figure of 728,000, which is used by the New Democratic Party. The figures I see are the Statscan figures, which are some 200,000 less, but the NDP members choose to use their figures.

It does not matter what the figures are -- I know the leader of the third party has some difficulties with a variety of figures -- the figures are bad no matter which way we look at them. The short of it is, though, that we as a province are continuing at least to hold our own. When compared to the other industrial states and most, if not three quarters, of the other provinces of Canada, we are holding our position infinitely better than they are. Keep in mind that we have had debates in the past and not one decent proposal has come forward from the opposition. If one good idea had come forward from them that we could have used, we would have applied it. Lord knows, we have made every attempt.

Let us look at some of the things that have been achieved. Most members have supported them in the House. I am thinking of the Ontario Development Corp., which since this recession has begun has spent $105 million to create not only 17,000 jobs over five years but also 7,000 jobs in one year -- direct, lasting jobs that have a multiplier effect. We have the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development project that is a long-range investment strategy; it will involve a $1.5-billion investment, with $750 million from the province, to allow the development of the technology centres, for instance, and to allow industry to become extremely efficient.

We also have short-term employment stimulation attempts. We recognize how bad the problem is and some short-term efforts are being made. In addition, tens of thousands of jobs are being created in what the Minister of Labour was signing yesterday and in what the May budget brought forward.

The most important thing that we as a government can do is maintain a climate for creating jobs. Private enterprise is the place that will create the long-term, lasting jobs in this province and in this nation.

In the past 12 months alone, private enterprise has either expanded or developed new plants to the tune of 123 in this province for a $700-million investment, and that is what creates jobs. That is why, when we have these filibustering approaches, these attempts to have emergency debates every other day, I ask what these people are trying to do other than delay the process of government, and I accuse them of that.

Mr. Speaker: I have listened carefully and with great interest to this debate and, as everybody has recognized, including myself, it is an extremely grave problem. However, having said that, I have no alternative but to find the motion out of order because of the conflict with standing order 34(c)(iv), which says, "the motion must not revive discussion on a matter that has been discussed in the same session under this standing order." It has indeed been debated and discussed at great length before us.

Mr. T. P. Reid: By unanimous consent we can waive that.

Mr. Speaker: Do you want to ask for it?

Mr. T. P. Reid: Yes. Could we have unanimous consent to waive that rule?

Mr. Speaker: It would be more appropriate if the mover were to ask for that.

Mr. McClellan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, as to your ruling: Can you tell me when earlier in the session we have had a debate on today's unemployment figures?

Mr. Speaker: I am glad you happened to ask that. On March 11, 1982, Mr. Peterson moved, seconded by Mr. Nixon, pursuant to standing order 34, that the ordinary business of the House be set aside so that the House may debate a matter of urgent public importance, that being the serious and unprecedented level of unemployment in this province and the lack of government programs to come to grips with this matter.

11:40 a.m.

Mr. McClellan: I realize what you said, Mr. Speaker, but my watch shows the calendar date is December 3, and the motion refers to the unemployment figures as of today.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, may I speak on the point of order? You have cited that the matter has been discussed on a previous occasion in this session. I want to reiterate that the increase in the number of unemployed from the date you spoke of when we had that original debate until now is something in the order of 160,000 to 175,000 citizens of the province. That in itself is a new and significant factor and is not something that has been discussed on a previous occasion.

Mr. Speaker: Order. As I have already indicated, I am not trying to diminish the importance of this in any way. shape or form, but I have to be guided by the standing orders.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Can I ask for an explanation? Is the implication of your ruling that it is not possible in one session to have more than one emergency debate with respect to unemployment? Is that the implication of your ruling?

Mr. Speaker: Let me point out to the honour- able member standing order 34(c)(ii), which says that "not more than one such motion may be made at any one sitting." That is fairly explicit. If we go on to section (iv), as I have already explained, it must not revive discussion on a matter that has already been debated. I have no discretion in this matter.

Mr. Foulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: With the greatest of respect. I point out to you that the rule you cite, 34, has to do with procedural motions. The motion we have before us is a substantive motion. May I point out to you with the greatest of respect --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable member is out of order. The member will resume his seat, please. I am amazed he would arise on such a point, and I would ask him to read standing order 34(a).

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order on a question --

Mr. Speaker: There is nothing out of order. I have to be guided by the standing orders.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: May I have some clarification?

Mr. Speaker: No, I cannot --

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I ask for the record to be clarified then.

Mr. Speaker: All right.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Thank you. The reason I would like the record to be clarified is that we are now deciding that because the matter of unemployment was discussed in March, we may not discuss it today.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Change the rules then.

Mr. Rotenberg: That is what the rules say.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Foulds: Who is running this House, the government House leader?

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Where is O'Flynn? He is running the House.

Mr. Foulds: Get your bully suits on, fellows.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Scarborough West was trying to make a point of order. I do not think he had made it.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I hope I did not misconstrue what you were saying but what confuses me, and why I would like this to be clarified, is that we have had at least two debates on the situation in Sudbury, giving different statistics for different changes that have taken place during that period. Here we are with a major change and for some reason or other we are not able to discuss it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is fine and that is legitimate. We have had many debates, as you have already pointed out and as other members have pointed out, but they have been on specific matters on specific areas. In one case at least it was done by unanimous consent, because in that case I had ruled the motion was out of order as well.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, if I may.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk.

Mr. Nixon: Do you want me to speak?

Mr. Speaker: Not really, but I am willing to listen.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I am not supposed to stand up while you are standing.

You mentioned the time when unanimous consent was granted to permit a debate. I was associated with the motion and appreciated the unanimous consent at that time. But I would like to bring to your attention that your ruling as we understand it would really prohibit a second debate on unemployment as the statistics change during a session of the Legislature.

The government House leader is indicating that we should change the rules but I suggest to you, as the arbiter of our deliberations, that it is up to you to interpret the rules in what I would consider to be a way that would make sense. In a session of the Legislature that may continue for many months, there might be more than one, two, or three occasions when as the statistics change they would require and really cause the need for a special debate in the House.

I hope you will reconsider that, and in the event that you do not we will have no recourse but to challenge your ruling.

Mr. Speaker: That is fine, but I just point out to all the honourable members that I have to be guided by the standing orders, as all the honourable members do.

To answer a question of specificity, if I may, to the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds), let there not be any doubt in anyone's mind that I am in charge of this House. Okay?

Having said that, the standing orders -- the rules -- are quite clear and quite specific. They are not open to any discretion and I have to be guided by what it says here. I might point out the obvious, which is that the standing orders have been produced by the honourable members.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I simply ask, in the light of your decision, whether the government is prepared to give us unanimous consent with respect to this debate.

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, Mr. Speaker. The answer is no.

Mr. Speaker: It is not just the government; it is members of the assembly, and I ask, do we have unanimous consent?

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Speaker: Obviously we do not.

Mr. McClellan: Reluctantly, Mr. Speaker, but in view of the fact that our motion dealt with the statistics as of December 3, which is different from any previous debate, we will have to challenge your ruling.

12:10 p.m.

The House divided on the Speaker's ruling, which was sustained on the following vote:

Ayes

Andrewes, Ashe, Baetz, Barlow, Bennett, Bernier, Brandt, Cousens, Cureatz, Dean, Drea, Elgie, Eves, Fish, Gillies, Gregory, Grossman, Hennessy, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Jones, Kells, Kennedy, Kolyn, Lane, Leluk, MacQuarrie, McCaffrey, McCague, McLean, McMurtry, McNeil, Mitchell;

Norton, Piché, Pollock, Ramsay, Robinson, Rotenberg, Scrivener, Sheppard, Shymko, Snow, Stephenson, B. M., Sterling, Taylor, G. W., Timbrell, Treleaven, Villeneuve, Walker, Watson, Welch, Wells, Williams, Wiseman.

Nays

Boudria, Bradley, Breithaupt, Charlton, Conway, Copps, Eakins, Edighoffer, Elston, Foulds, Grande, Johnston, R. F., Lupusella, McClellan, McGuigan, Miller, G. I., Nixon, Peterson, Philip, Rae, Reed, J. A., Reid, T. P., Renwick, Riddell, Ruprecht, Ruston, Swart, Sweeney, Wildman, Worton.

Ayes 55; nays 30.

VISITOR

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, may I take a moment to introduce to members of the House a great veteran and experienced parliamentarian of the 1950s in this House, who represented the constituency of Niagara Falls with such distinction. He sits in the gallery below your gallery, Mr. Speaker: Mr. Arthur Jolley, who looks quite well in his retirement, and we welcome him, I am sure, today.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order regarding the rule 81(d). The written question was tabled on November 17 in my name. It is number 674 on the order paper --

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: It is not my responsibility, either, so resume your seat and get on with the work.

Mr. Foulds: On a new point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: There is nothing out of order. The member for Port Arthur will resume his seat.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FOOD (CONTINUED)

Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, I started my lead-off comments last Monday evening. I spent some time on them and, of course, I had expected that I would finish before one o'clock today. That may or may not now be the case.

Members of this committee will recall that when I started my leadoff speech last Monday I said I would be dealing with four main problems now facing our agricultural producers. Those are high interest rates, low farm prices, import replacement and food land preservation, all very serious problems facing the basic producers of this province.

Today I would have to say that the situation is probably somewhat worse even than it was when we started these estimates one week ago. The state of the economy, as we know today, has deteriorated, and there is no question that this is reflected in the farm community. In fact, when I say that, perhaps the fact that it has been so serious in the farm community is one reason we are now in such a serious unemployment situation. Certainly the employment that was dependent on the farm community, such as in the farm implement business, has been the most seriously hurt of all. In fact, it has been devastated.

You will recall, Mr. Chairman, that on Monday last I discussed the first issue rather fully, that of the problem created by the high interest rates and the tremendous debt payments the farmers have to meet. I am not going to dwell on them at any length again except perhaps to remind this House of some statistics I gave which, within the context of the rest of my speech, are important to repeat.

12:20 p.m.

The interest on the indebtedness being paid by farmers in the period between 1972 and 1976 was $131 million annually, only one fifth of the net farm income of $650 million. In the following year, 1977, it was only $201 million out of the net farm income of $669 million. By 1981, the farm debt payments had reached $633 million out of a net farm income of $835 million. My words there are unfortunate; it is not out of that, but in relation to a net farm income of $835 million, or 75 per cent.

This year, largely because of the reduction in farm income, it is really going to exceed total net farm income. We all recognize that is an exceedingly serious situation.

I also mentioned that to deal with this situation the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell), in theory at least, had set up a $60-million program of which he has only paid out $13.4 million. Those figures of perhaps $700 million this year in interest indebtedness that farmers are going to have to pay, up from the $130 million seven years ago, and the minister has only given them $13.4 million out of the $700 million, indicate the paucity of support being given to the farmers in this field.

In addition, the minister, as was pointed out by the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell), has not kept his promise that not only was in the budget but was stated during the last election campaign and on several other occasions by several cabinet ministers, that they would proceed with a young farmers --

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Not the last election.

Mr. Swart: I am not sure whether I have it with me at the present time, but I had a copy of the speech from the throne.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: But not the last election. You said the last election.

Mr. Swart: It was mentioned during the last election. I can get that for the minister, too.

Mr. Riddell: On April 24, in Leamington the minister also made the same statement in the headline, "Province Introduces Aid to Beginning Farmers -- Dennis Timbrell."

Mr. Swart: That has not materialized and, as several editorials point out in the farm papers and the daily papers in this province, that aid seems to have been postponed further and will probably be postponed indefinitely. The farmers have simply been left to carry on pretty well on their own.

That leads me into the next area I want to cover, that is the low or inadequate prices of farm produce.

I have to agree with the minister that this is an area over which the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, and for that matter the provincial government, has limited control, at least on the price of certain products varying from commodity to commodity.

My party is supportive, at least of what is on paper and what has been said, of the policy of the minister to have a tripartite agreement between the federal government, the province and the producers for an adequate income stabilization program.

It makes sense that an income stabilization program should be uniform across the whole nation. I would point out to the minister that I wish he would follow that same policy with regard to the long-term farm credit. All of the other provinces in this nation have long-term farm credit. The minister refuses to institute it in this province so our farmers are at a disadvantage. At least on the farm income stabilization, in a very contradictory but I would say in a proper way, he wants uniform policy. It is contradictory to his other policy which should be changed. But he wants a tripartite agreement and a uniform policy with regard to farm income stabilization and, certainly, it is necessary.

I have here what I think is the latest bulletin, number 615, on the average prices received by Ontario farmers for farm products. I find that oats which were $1.96 a bushel on September 15, 1981, are down to $1.68, a 14 per cent reduction. Barley was at $2.70 a bushel and is down to $2.06 a bushel, a 24 per cent reduction. Rye was at $4.05 a bushel on September 15, 1981; in September of this year it was down to $2.15, the price that the farmer receives almost cut in half.

Soybeans, a major crop in this province, sold at $265 a metric ton in September 1981; in September of this year the price was down to $222, a reduction of 16 per cent. Shelled corn, which was at $3.46 a year ago last September, has the price of $2.62 in September of this year, down by 24 per cent. Mixed grains were down by 17 per cent; fresh market potatoes were down by 35 per cent; the price of dairy cows was down by 12.9 per cent; dairy heifers were down by 10 per cent and so on.

There are some farm commodities that were approximately the same price, but with the majority of them the prices were down. The majority of them were down substantially and, at a time when farmers' costs are increasing and when they have the tremendous indebtedness we have talked about, it is easy to see why they are in such real difficulties.

In the briefing statement provided by the ministry, as near as I can see -- and the minister can correct me if I am wrong -- really the only income stabilization provided by the ministry is the $5 million for the sow-weaner stabilization program.

If there are other areas where stabilization funds have been paid out, I would like to know, but that appears to be all they have done in this regard. It would seem to me that even while the minister is waiting for that tripartite agreement, which is desirable, he should at least show his good faith to the farmers by doing a bit more on the farm income stabilization.

Incidentally, before I move on, I should point out that even under the Ontario farm adjustment assistance program, the interest subsidy stated here is $39 million; but at the present time it is only $13.5 million. I suppose, by the time the fiscal year is over, the figure may get up to there, but certainly that kind of money has not been spent at this time.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: With respect, I think the honourable member is confusing the figures for option B and option C.

Under option C of the program the ministry has assumed approved guarantees on new lines of credit, totalling about $39 million, if my memory serves me correctly. Under option B, the ministry has approved interest rate rebates on outstanding operating credit exceeding $570 million, for which to date we have sent monthly rebate cheques totalling about $15.5 million, but the total credit on which we have agreed to pay interest rate rebates is approaching $600 million.

The $39-million figure, with respect, is the extent of the new lines of credit which we have guaranteed and obviously for some or all of which we are potentially liable.

12:30 p.m.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, I am aware of the three parts of the plan. All I am saying is that at this point you have not spent $39.5 million or anywhere near that figure. It may be that by the time spring comes, because of the economic conditions, it may get up to that figure, but I am just pointing out that at present that figure is an estimate and nothing more. I suggest it is probably a high estimate at that.

Worth putting on the record here is the small amount of the Ontario budget that goes to agriculture, compared to that of other agricultural provinces in this nation. In Saskatchewan, 3.25 per cent of the budget goes to agriculture in one way or another; in Alberta, 1.98 per cent; in Prince Edward Island, 4.5 per cent; in Manitoba, 2.1 per cent; in Quebec, two per cent; in Nova Scotia, 1.3 per cent. Ontario has only 1.2 per cent of its budget designated for agriculture. I suggest that is a pretty clear indication of the lack of priority given to our agricultural producers in this province compared to other provinces in Canada.

The minister has made much -- and I am not sure whether he has any new information to give us at this time -- of the matter of the tripartite agreement with regard to farm income stabilization. If I am not misquoting him, I believe he said in the House a week or two ago that he hoped to make some announcement before long with regard to this. As I have stated, we believe it is a desirable goal to have a tripartite agreement.

I am a little bit sceptical of the long-term outcome. I am wondering if this is not a politically motivated statement which he has some reason to believe may not come to fruition. Also, I would like the minister, when he gets up to reply, to state how far he is willing to go in a meaningful income stabilization program with the figures I have mentioned here, with what you are paying at the present time.

They would have no meaning in a tripartite agreement. I am sure you are aware of that. They would not do anything to resolve the problems of the low prices to the farmers, or their dramatically reducing net income. When I look at the figures and the production in this province, if you are only going to keep up the level of prices of 1981, many of which were substantially below those of 1980, we are talking about massive sums of money.

For instance, in soybeans you would have to provide a subsidy, a farm income stabilization payment, in the neighbourhood of $25 million. In corn, it would be $75 million. In cattle, it would be $125 million. Even in eggs, it would be $4 million. The question I ask is, are you prepared to pay your one-third share of the cost of a meaningful income stabilization program? Because if we get a tripartite program and it is not going to have any more coverage than the program at the present time, we are not even going to adequately meet the deficits that the farmers are having in their prices compared to previous years, and it is not going to solve any problems in our society.

I would say to the minister, while he is talking about a tripartite program he should also be talking about what he envisages in the way of income stabilization for the farmers and in the way of support prices for the farmers. I want to hear him talk about that too. It seems to me there is not much use in talking about one unless he is prepared to talk about the other and indicate he is willing to put in far more money than we have in all the forms of income stabilization today and in help to the farmers.

There is another area in the price paid to farmers where this government has been negligent in not protecting the farmer. That is in the markup by the processor before it gets to the consumer. The share of the consumer price the farmer gets in many quantities is unreasonably low.

I recall, early this fall, the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) stated I had been fighting, because of my fight for consumer prices, to keep the farmers' income down. I think he realizes now that has never been the case, nor can anybody find any quotes in that respect. In fact, it is the reverse. I want to see the lowest possible markup between the farmer and the consumer so they can both benefit.

I think I am right in saying the member also said, "I don't know how the member for Welland-Thorold can be both Consumer and Commercial Affairs critic and Agriculture and Food critic, because there is a conflict there." I want to say that we in this party do not need two mouths to talk out of. We have one policy and the same person can articulate that policy --

Mr. Philip: He does it so well, too.

Mr. Swart: I was just going to say, perhaps I cannot do it as well as others, but we do have one policy. We do not have to have somebody up here trying to get the public to believe we are just fighting for consumer prices regardless of what happens to the producer, and then somebody else getting up and fighting for higher prices for the producer regardless of what happens to the consumer. That is not our attitude in this party. We speak with one voice and one person can represent two issues, which the party to the right might find very difficult to do, when it is a case of one person saying one thing about one area that affects the other and another person saying something different.

I am very pleased we now have the president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture getting in on the theme I have espoused here for a number of years, that we should be taking a look at the markup on the farmers' produce and we should be doing something about it. I know the member for Huron-Middlesex read part of these comments into the record when he was speaking in his leadoff. I want to put some more on the record.

Mr. Ralph Barrie, president of the OFA, speaking a week ago last Tuesday, said: "We have to devise new techniques of educating consumers and politicians about why we're fighting for these causes" -- for greater income for the farmer. "For instance, we must impress upon them" -- the consumers and the politicians -- "that we deserve a higher share of the consumer's food dollar. We've got to keep telling them about how little of that dollar we actually pocket. Take an item like a 48-ounce can of apple juice. You pay about $1.29 for it in the store. Can anyone guess what the farmer's share of that was? It was a whopping 17 cents. In 1981, the last year we could get figures for, the can cost more -- it cost 26 cents."

Then he said: "Let's look at a basic food item that doesn't require fancy packaging and three- coloured labels -- dried white beans. A pound of them cost $1.15 retail. The farmer's share was 37 cents. In 1979, you paid 61 cents for a pound a beans at the store and the farmer got 26 cents."

12:40 p.m.

The gap is widening, there is no question. There are reasons for that, let me admit, that are far beyond any ripoff. But in some instances there is an excessive markup by the processor and/or the distributor. It is an area which this government, if it cared about the farmers and consumers, would be doing more about and in which it would be doing some investigation. That is part of the reason we say there should be a fair prices commission.

Mr. Barrie expounds further on this theme and gives further examples but I am not going to take the time to read them into the record here today. I think that is sufficient indication of the situation that exists.

I say to you, Mr. Minister, and I hope you will comment on this when you get up, one area you should have immense concern about is the reducing share of the retail milk dollar that the farmer is getting. You should have a real concern about that because the reduction is dramatic and the same kind of reduction is not taking place in the other provinces.

I asked Mr. Peter Gould of the Ontario Milk Marketing Board if he would update a letter he sent to me last year, which shows the share the farmer has been getting of the retail price of milk over a number of years. He has submitted it to me under a letter dated October 25, 1982. I want to quote some of those figures to you. I will not quote them all but he has provided quite a number of tables.

To me, the significant ones are these, Mr. Minister -- I do not know if you have a copy of this letter or if you have seen them or not -- because they are pretty serious.

This is from table 2, producer revenue and the proportion of retail price for Ontario based on three-quart retail price Toronto mid-July. In 1976 -- this is for whole milk -- the farmer got 71.1 per cent of the retail price; in 1977, it had dropped to 68 per cent; in 1978, 68.2 per cent; in 1979, 66 per cent; in 1980, 64 per cent; in 1981, 62 per cent; in 1982, 60.3 per cent. It went from 71.1 per cent in 1976 down to 60.3 per cent in 1982.

For two per cent milk, the farmer was getting 77.1 per cent in 1976 it is now down to 65.7 per cent. For skim milk, he was getting 67.5 per cent and that s now down to 65.7 per cent.

If we take another size of container, one litre, for obvious reasons the farmer gets less and always has got less of the selling price. We find that his share of the retail price for whole milk has dropped from 56.3 per cent in 1976 to 50 per cent in 1982. Two per cent has dropped from 57.4 per cent to 50.6 per cent. Skim milk has gone from 58.7 per cent to 51.2 per cent.

When we look at the consumer price of milk which, except for Quebec, traditionally has been somewhat lower in Ontario than elsewhere, obviously because of our large volumes here, we find that the retail price is now equal to or surpasses that of most other provinces in Canada.

It is a pretty serious situation when the farmer's share has dropped by about 25 per cent from what he was getting before. Formerly, he was getting 70 per cent; now he is down to 60 per cent or less, on average.

I think we know that in the latest increase the farmer got 2.69 per cent. He had to fight to get that. He had to prove that he had those additional costs. That ended up as eight cents per litre. In the larger containers, it ended up as seven cents per litre. The farmer gets only 2.69 per cent. It bears out that there has been a substantial reduction in what the farmer is getting as a share of the selling price.

The minister must recall that I raised this with the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie) on two occasions this fall and asked him to look into it. What does he say? He mouths the policy of your government: "We keep hands off. We are not going to get into the business of investigating that." Even when you have prima facie evidence like this, even when the farmer is being hurt and the consumer is being hurt, you simply will not investigate.

I have demonstrated in this House before, and I shall be doing so again, the excessive markups which result in excessive profits for the cereal producers in this province. They are not hurting from this economic downturn. In fact, they are benefiting from it, because they are buying their oats and their wheat and their cereals at a much lower price than they were before and they are not reducing the retail price of cereals.

When you get up, Mr. Minister, I hope you can point out to me some reduction in the retail price and name certain prepared cereals where the price has been reduced because the farmer's price has gone down by 10, 15 or 20 per cent. I challenge you to do that. We have the Ambler Pricing Services in the legislative library. They can give you the figures, back almost week by week for three or four years. I suggest you look at them and see if there are any of these prepared cereals where you can show me that the price has dropped, or for that matter even held stable, because the farmer is getting less for his produce. I think you may have some difficulty in doing that.

There is one other point I want to make. In this field, there has never been a government in this nation, nor is there now, that is really so indifferent to trying to ensure that competition remains to protect the consumer, as is this government of this province.

It does not matter whether you can show that there are only two companies producing it; it does not matter that the three major sugar companies in Canada which service this market in Canada were convicted and fined $250,000 because of combining. Granted, the Court of Appeal overthrew that simply because the combines legislation is so weak. Then we have the former Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations of your government getting up and saying that he is against toughening up the combines legislation. As a result, both the consumer and the producer in this province are receiving fewer benefits than they otherwise would.

I now want to move to the issue of import replacement. I have to say to the minister that I was really a bit puzzled by his introductory comments, which apparently I do not have with me. You talked about import replacements and said what a tremendous job you had done in selling in the foreign market. I have trouble relating how that is import replacement. As we know, sales of Ontario farm products have gone up rather substantially.

I know the minister would like us to believe it is because of the delegations they have sent across the world, and that may have some bearing on it. I suggest the real reason they have gone up is because of our low dollar value. When that dollar goes back up again, as I suppose most of us hope it will some day, those markets we have overseas that the minister is relying on may well disappear. I suggest, as do the federations of agriculture, the Christian Farmers Association and the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, that there should be more emphasis on import replacement than the minister has been giving.

12:50 p.m.

I know that in his introductory comments he has talked, and I give him credit for this if he carries through with it, about producing more of our tomato paste, growing more of our own strawberries and having refrigeration or cold storage systems so we will have our own production for a longer period of time of the year. These are all important and necessary things, but I point out to the minister that his government has been in power now for 40 years and to some extent his government has brought about the imbalance in exports and imports.

If this had been a sincere attempt on the part of his government during the period it has been in power, over the last 10 or 20 years, we would not be in the serious situation we are in at present. Perhaps as a new minister, a new broom will sweep clean and we may get some action on this.

The minister must realize from his own figures that in 1975 imports into this province were $1.2 billion and exports were $600 million. There was a gap of $600 million. The minister will know, again according to his own figures, that in 1981 the exports had grown to $1.6 billion, but the imports had grown to $2.53 billion. There was a gap of $930 million, up something like 55 per cent.

This government has not kept up with the rest of Canada. The other provinces, or the federal government more appropriately, have really done a better job than this government has, because back in 1976 exports were $4 billion, imports were $3.1 billion, and that is total agricultural products, and we had a favourable balance of $900 million.

That favourable balance in 1981 was $3.3 billion. It had increased by more than three times. It looks as if the federal government has been doing a better job than this provincial government in selling our exports. There are a variety of reasons for this, but the minister should not stand up and say he is doing such a tremendous job in replacing our imports when there is no proof to show it at the present time.

I would like to go into the area that applies to fruits and vegetables, but I am not going to take the time to do that. Rather, I want to say that the start the minister has made on greater self- sufficiency and on import replacement is valuable but he has to go much further. That is where he should really be putting the emphasis. I suggest if he had spent all that money that was spent on junkets abroad -- they are not entirely junkets -- on trips overseas, on other techniques for long-term import replacement, it would have done more for the farmers of this province.

The Christian Farmers Association has pointed that out, as I am sure the minister is aware, and even the Ontario Federation of Agriculture has made it clear -- and I have the briefs here -- that they want much more done on the matter of import replacement.

I have, as I say, some reservations about how successful the minister will be. I think he is sincere in wanting to move up and really do some economic planning in the agricultural area. His government generally is so opposed to economic planning that one wonders how he can carry out what he has proposed in his leadoff comments.

But there are two areas that make me very suspicious. The first is that the minister did not mention canola in his introductory comments. Perhaps when he gets up to reply he will have something to say about that, because the minister last year made a big issue of that and we know it is a real problem. We know what Alberta is doing now with regard to subsidizing canola, but where do we stand here? When the minister does not mention it, it makes me very suspicious.

I also would like the minister to indicate why he did not mention and, to the best of my knowledge, has made no proposal for greater self-sufficiency in soybean production in this province. He must be aware that we are importing a tremendous volume of soybeans. The figures I have before me by the federal Department of Agriculture, December 1981, indicate that our production is about 631,000 metric tons, imports are 400,000 metric tons and the total supply is 1,031,000 metric tons. We export 150,000 metric tons, and I understand that. They export from the west; we have to export one place and import another place.

But even if we look at the net, we are importing a net of about 300,000 metric tons of soybeans. If you multiply the price of that, you find that is about $60 million. If we were producing that it is revenue that the farmers could be receiving here, and I hope the minister will report on it. This certainly is one of the largest areas -- and I am sure he will agree -- of import replacement that we could find in a fruitful way.

Mr. G. I. Miller: We can grow those down in South Cayuga.

Mr. Swart: There are a lot of soybeans grown. The production of soybeans increased tremendously a number of years ago, but recently it has not increased to any great extent. The Minister of Agriculture and Food has some responsibility for that, I am sure, and will want to deal with it.

I have only one further area that I want to deal with. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to be able to finish in three minutes. We got a late start. I want to talk about food land preservation. No one in this House will be surprised that I want to deal with that at some length. I do not mean by "at some length" that I am going to talk for an hour or anything of that nature, but I think I will recognize the clock and sit down. I will commence that part of my discussion on Monday afternoon after the orders of the day.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Timbrell, the committee of supply reported progress.

The House adjourned at 1 p.m.