Hansard Transcripts 1984-Apr-13 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Hon. Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, as the minister responsible for privacy and access initiatives, I am pleased to announce to the Legislature that this spring Ontario will be hosting an Interprovincial Conference on Privacy and Computers from May 22 to May 25.

During the last decade, as computer technology has advanced, concern for personal privacy has surfaced as one of the leading issues faced by citizens of modern industrial societies. In this respect, the primary focus of the conference will be on the protection of personal information contained in automated data banks by both the public and private sectors.

The conference will be attended by noted authorities from the private and public sectors. It is my firm belief that not only is it appropriate to encourage input from the private sector, but it is also vital in order that we as a government may address these concerns in a responsible and comprehensive manner.

The importance of developing a uniform approach to this growing issue becomes readily apparent when one realizes that information gathered about an individual may be stored and actually used in another province or country.

As members know, it is generally held that individual rights, including privacy rights, are not within the exclusive jurisdiction of either the federal or provincial level of government. As provinces do have jurisdictions governing property and civil rights, I believe we have an ideal opportunity to establish a mechanism that will protect the privacy of individuals whose personal information is retained and not unduly interfere with the daily operations of the private sector.

To date, the response to the conference has been most encouraging, with more than 100 participants having been confirmed. Representation has been broad as well, with confirmations steadily coming in from medical, banking and business communities across Canada and internationally. Many special interest groups, including the Canadian Union of Public Employees, the Insurance Bureau of Canada, the Consumers' Association of Canada and the Canadian Cable Television Association, have also been included.

Essentially, the conference will consist of two parts. The first part, from May 22 to the morning of May 24, will be a symposium to discuss the issues of privacy in the public and private sectors with a special focus on the electronic data area. This would be attended primarily by private and government officials.

The second part, from the afternoon of Thursday, May 24, to the morning of May 25, will be a ministerial meeting that will include ministers with an interest in the privacy area from all the provinces and territories across the country.

By way of this statement, I would like to extend an invitation to the members of this assembly to attend the symposium. Members of the media are also welcome.

It is my hope that through consultative initiatives such as this privacy conference a foundation will be laid to enable a process to be established -- a process that will recognize and balance the rights of individuals with those of society and government.

CO-OPERATIVE EDUCATION

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, 27 years ago the University of Waterloo took the innovative idea of co-operative education and pioneered an educational program that has come to be recognized as a vital feature of that university today. The University of Waterloo conducts the largest co-operative program in Canada and the second largest in the world.

More than 8,000 students and thousands of employers throughout Canada and elsewhere are involved in this successful program, which has brought about a close relationship between the university and the industrial community.

Computer research at the University of Waterloo dates back to its very beginnings. In 1964 the university developed WATFOR, which was considered a major breakthrough in programming language research at the time. This was quickly followed by other successes through the 1960s and 1970s in software development and computer networking, including such recent developments as microNET and JAnet. The university's developed software is used today under licence by more than 3,000 users worldwide.

Recently, the university brought together several first-class computer research groups, created over the last 10 years, into a single organization known as the Institute for Computer Research. The establishment of the institute marks yet another milestone in the university's continuing commitment to scientific excellence and the promotion of a healthy research environment in this province and this country.

The university's dedication to excellence in teaching and research in computer science and engineering, as well as co-operative education, has been well received and supported by commerce and industry.

Numerous advanced technology companies, such as NCR Canada, Raytheon, Electrohome, Allen-Bradley, etc., which are located in the geographic region, have benefited from the industry-university partnership approach to the advancement of education, research and technology transfer.

10:10 a.m.

Only this week Hewlett-Packard (Canada) Ltd. announced that an option to purchase 25 acres of land has been obtained on the north campus of the University of Waterloo. The company plans to make the land the long-term location for the future expansion and development of Panacom operation, now located in Scarborough. Hewlett-Packard has said that proximity to a major university was "one of the factors" in the decision to obtain an option on land in Waterloo.

The University of Waterloo has served this province very well. I am pleased to announce today, in the presence of my colleagues in the Legislature and the representatives of the University of Waterloo who are in the gallery, the government's support for this industry-university partnership. Over the next four years the government will provide capital assistance of up to $31.1 million to the University of Waterloo towards the construction and alteration of facilities for the Institute for Computer Research.

In partnership with the government, the University of Waterloo will provide funding for this project through its own fund-raising activities. Under the chairmanship of Mr. John Trevor Eyton, president and chief executive officer of Brascan Ltd., Watfund, the university's fund- raising drive, has been most successful. I am pleased to note that the university has undertaken to assume the balance of the cost of this project.

The project will provide space for research and teaching activities in many areas of computer science as well as several branches of engineering which have resulted from the widespread use of computers. In addition, the facilities will provide space for specialists from industry to work alongside university researchers. The close collaboration between the university and industry provides a most effective method for technology transfer to industry and a mechanism for the university to maintain relevance in the research and teaching of computers and their applications.

I am also delighted to announce that this joint venture between the government of Ontario and the University of Waterloo in providing facilities for intellectual synergy will result in the creation of an estimated 1,160 jobs of an average duration of 12 weeks over the next four years.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ADMISSIONS TO COMMUNITY COLLEGES

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Colleges and Universities regarding her strange policies with respect to admissions to community colleges and the capacity of community colleges to respond to the need for trained workers and the applications coming to them.

I put to her the specific case of Robert Tereshyn of Niagara College, who was very upset with the minister's remarks in this House on March 27 with respect to the admissions to the community colleges. He could not get into the law and security administration program at Niagara last fall, so he enrolled in a generalist program, taking courses he was advised would be of benefit to getting into the program at some later date. He was rejected again. When we spoke to the counselling people at Niagara, we learned there were 250 applications for some 50 seats in that program.

Is the minister persuaded now of the truth of a number of reports she has had access to but not shared with other people that there are many students in Ontario going without spots in community colleges, even though she knew of the demand, because the ministry has failed to respond to that demand?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, it is utterly ludicrous to suggest that the ministry has failed to respond or that the colleges have failed to respond to the increased demand for places. It is absolutely true that many students may not achieve admission to the course or program of their first choice within the college system. That is true in any post-secondary system anywhere in the world.

The numbers the honourable member publicized regarding the rejection of students or the inability of students are not accurate because we have not had complete information about the multiplicity of applications made by many students to many programs and many colleges. If we deduct those multiple applications from the total, the number is reduced by about 90 per cent.

Indeed, there are probably some students who have not managed to gain admission to colleges on their first try. In most instances those students may have achieved admission on their second try, but not necessarily, however, to the course of their first choice within the college of their first choice. Many of those students who have been aggressive and imaginative about the ways in which they could complete their educational programs have applied to appropriate parallel courses and have achieved the educational base they feel they need.

We have worked diligently to expand the capacity of the college system to meet the increasing demand, but I would remind the honourable member that this is not the only study that has been done. A very valid and scientifically accurate study was carried out by Professor Foote regarding the projections for community college admissions in 1980 and 1981, which demonstrated clearly that in his mind by the year 1985 a significant number of colleges would be looking at a reduction in admission numbers of the order of 20 to 25 per cent. That is the other side of the coin, which the honourable member never fails to ignore in all his arguments.

Mr. Peterson: I guess what the minister has told us is that she just does not know the status.

Let me refer the minister to another secret report she would not share with our researchers or with the library. This is a report of September 1983 called Student Applications to Full-Time Post-Secondary Programs at the Ontario Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology: Patterns, Issues and Implications. In that report the following assertion is made: "Large numbers of potential students who are likely qualified for admission are not being admitted to quota programs, to certain small or specialized programs and to certain large-demand, high-technology programs."

How much evidence does the minister need, how many secret reports does she need before she is apprised of the fact that there is a major problem in meeting the demand for students as well as the demand for trained technological people in the work force?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The information we have developed and the research we have carried out or have helped to sponsor would demonstrate that the opinion expressed in a number of papers that the honourable member has obviously looked at may or may not be as valid as he suggests it is. It is my responsibility to ensure at this time, during the most vigorous, increased rate of participation at the post-secondary level, in which Ontario has now reached the zenith of second in the world with respect to post-secondary institutional participation, that we attempt to meet the requirements of the students.

Mr. Breithaupt: Who is better? Is anybody better?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The United States has a greater rate of participation. It is the only other country in the western world or the only other jurisdiction that has, and that is factual.

We will continue to strive to meet those needs. But the admission of qualified students is a matter of very real concern to us and it is a matter that has preoccupied us, with successful outcomes in almost all areas.

Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, the minister may speak grandly about being at the zenith of something or other. That, of course, does not answer the problems of this House as to the quality of what is going on and the kind of training that is happening inside those institutions.

Putting that to one side as another issue, I would like to remind the minister that Mr. Williams, the chairman of the Ontario Council of Regents for Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology, speaking a year ago about the incredible shortage of space in the college system, said in some desperation that we are using elementary schools and church basements and taking extraordinary measures to try to cope with the crush.

When the minister fools us with all these references to multiple registrations and the problem of deducting them all, that has already happened. In fact, when we asked both the colleges and the ministry statistical branch in this respect last fall --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Allen: -- to provide us with information, the response was the following: In the metropolitan commuting area, which was so crucial to the pressure, the increase in enrolments on a first-choice basis only was 17.9 per cent and the acceptances were only 4.5 per cent.

Mr. Speaker: You do have a question, I presume?

Mr. Allen: When is the minister going to face up to the problem of shortages facing young people going into that sector of post-secondary education and deliver the goods in that respect in terms of space and adequate facilities to cope with them?

10:20 a.m.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member has apparently failed to recognize that in a number of the limited- enrolment courses there were very good reasons for limited enrolment. The primary reason is the opportunity for employment for the graduate from that program. This is a factor that is considered very seriously by the program advisory committees in all the institutions.

But the member has just noted how aggressive and imaginative the whole college system has been in attempting to reach solutions to the problems of dramatically increasing enrolment. We have used elementary schools. We have used old factories. We have used a church basement in perhaps one instance. We have most certainly used secondary school space at night, on weekends and during the day, if it happened to be totally vacant. We will continue to do that because we need to use whatever space is possible.

We need to put our money into the provision of programs, not into the building of buildings, and that is what we have been trying to do. The member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen) is making the illusion that we are perhaps second best to anyone in the quality of our post-secondary educational system. On behalf of all those institutions, I would not accept that suggestion.

Mr. Peterson: Regarding the government's policy with respect to applications for quota programs, limited application programs in the community colleges, is the minister not embarrassed that effectively what she is running is education by lottery or education by chance?

I point to a quotation by Mr. Michael LeMay of Fellowes High School that represents in real terms what she is doing to the educational system by this bizarre system of application:

"Every fall I stand up in front of students and tell them the importance of working hard and the importance of achieving good marks if they hope to attend a post-secondary school. I feel like an absolute idiot when I have to tell them in April that whether they achieve 90 or 60 per cent, they will have to wait for the luck of the draw if the program they selected is oversubscribed."

What kind of system is that?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The honourable member is again attempting to generalize for the entire system. It is absolutely not true. In certain of the oversubscribed programs there is, as a last resort, all other things being equal, a lottery for those who are equally qualified for admission to the course. That is a fact.

That decision was not made by the ministry. It was a recommendation of the educators at the college system level who have examined this problem over a period of 17 years and determined it is still the fairest way to admit students to the small number of limited enrolment programs that are habitually oversubscribed.

TOBACCO INDUSTRY

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. In view of the fact that the tobacco cutback is going to be the worst in decades during this coming year, 1984, and in view of the fact that I believe the minister has done some travelling this past week, does he have anything to report to the Legislature and to the tobacco farmers to give them any encouragement that their future might look a little brighter in the coming growing season?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I understand that later this morning we will be discussing the subject of tobacco and the prospects for 1984 and beyond. I can tell the honourable member that after the beginning of negotiations between the Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board and the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers Council, the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) and I were asked for a meeting with the two parties to discuss their concerns.

The member will recall that it was at the initial negotiating meeting, which I believe was March 27, that the manufacturers indicated their purchases this year would be one third less than last year's. It was within that context that our meeting was held.

The Treasurer is reviewing their concerns with respect to levels of taxation and so forth. I might add that at the same time they asked to meet with the Treasurer and me -- and I believe we gave them that meeting within 24 hours of their asking for it -- they asked for a meeting with the federal Minister of Finance and the federal Minister of Agriculture, which meeting has yet to be held; so the member will see that we have dealt with them and treated the issue on the urgent basis it deserves.

Last Friday I conveyed to the growers and the manufacturers the interest of this government in the matter, particularly with respect to the exports of tobacco from Ontario principally to the United Kingdom. I offered to go to the United Kingdom with the chairman of the Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board, Mr. Demeyere, and with Mr. Gage, the chief negotiator for the manufacturers, to meet with their principal customers. We left on Monday evening and returned last evening. In the course of two full working days in the United Kingdom, we met with the Tobacco Advisory Council and the largest of their buyers.

In the course of our meetings I put the question very simply to our customers in the United Kingdom, "Are you interested in buying Ontario tobacco in the long term or is this merely part of a phase-out of Ontario from the United Kingdom market?" I am pleased to say the answer from every one of the people with whom we met, including some of the most senior people in the tobacco industry in the United Kingdom, was that they like Ontario tobacco, that they intend to continue to use Ontario tobacco and that we must remain price-competitive in a market which now has access to rather inexpensive tobacco from countries such as Brazil, South Korea, Zimbabwe and Malawi. The long-term prospect is that we will remain in that market so long as we can remain competitive.

Mr. Speaker, that was a lengthy answer, but I thought I should give a full one. I believe the growers and the manufacturers go back to the negotiating table on Tuesday of next week. We will know better then what effect our visit to the United Kingdom will have had, but I am optimistic.

Mr. G. I. Miller: I am not concerned about the politics or how many meetings the minister had with them. I want to make it clear to him that many dreams have turned into nightmares in the tobacco area. There was a story in the London Free Press dated April 4 that clearly indicates that. I will not use the name.

I am asking the minister, what is he planning to do to make sure these farmers can survive to support their families and their farms? Does he have any future plans for that? Canagrex is sitting out there. I spoke to them yesterday, and I think they are willing to help in this area. It is time the provincial and federal governments worked together so we do not run into the disaster we appear to be facing.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: In reciting the list of meetings held, I wanted to emphasize to the member and to the growers and all interested parties that this government is treating this matter with the degree of urgency it deserves. By contrast, I point out that meetings that have been asked for with the federal government are still to be held. I was amazed on my return last evening to pick up the newspapers and see that the advice from the federal government apparently is to plough the tobacco under. They are not really taking it as seriously as are we.

I think the member will find that if he were to speak with the chairman of the Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board, the chairman would report that this government is doing everything possible to help the growers to stabilize the situation in the face of decreasing demand for their product here and abroad. It is something that is not peculiar to Ontario or Canada. It is a phenomenon of the western world that the demand for tobacco is steadily decreasing. We must do everything possible to help them retain as much as possible of the markets we have had in the past.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, recognizing the validity of what the minister says with regard to the reducing market in this nation and probably the reducing world market for tobacco, not just because of taxation but also because of the trend away from smoking, what plans has he for, and what assistance is he prepared to give to the farmers in those areas who have traditionally grown tobacco, to change to other crops such as peanuts, so we could become more self-sufficient? We have done the groundwork with the growing of peanuts so there will be a product they can profitably grow on those lands. It seems to me that is the key question.

Will the minister abandon his lack of planning, get into planning and assure there will be a product from which those farmers can make a living?

10:30 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, we would not presume, as the honourable member seems to presume in this and other pronouncements, to have a state-run agricultural economy that would tell farmers exactly what they should grow.

Mr. Swart: I did not say that at all.

Mr. Rae: The farmers cannot sell their products. Who ever heard of such a marketing board? Even for the governing party that is beyond the pale.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Did I touch a nerve? Maybe I did.

Mr. Rae: This time the Conservatives have really outdone themselves.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Through our county agricultural representatives, crop specialists and research stations, at all times we do work with individual producers to advise them on alternative crops they can consider. I will not go through the list of them; it would depend on the type of soil the farmers have, their acreage and a number of other factors.

We have been advising them that, depending on the final outcome of the negotiations between the Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers, Marketing Board and the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers Council which would indicate the total demand this year for both domestic and export purposes, they should plant their best acreage in tobacco and use the balance for other crops.

In all of those considerations they would have to look at the demand for those crops. They might want to look at corn, peanuts or a number of other possibilities. All the crops will have to be decided on the basis of the suitability of the soil, the acreage and the demand for that commodity. That is part of the agricultural economy.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware that the tax on 20 cigarettes in Ontario at this time is $1.05 and that of this amount, 42 cents is payable to the government of Canada and 63 cents is payable to his colleague the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Gregory)? In the last four years the tax in Ontario has gone up by 163 per cent. Would he not think that as well as following the New Democratic Party suggestion that we do away with the tobacco crop and start planting tomatoes and peanuts and so on, we should be doing something to reduce the outrageous and injudicious level of taxation to a point where it will stop depressing the market?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, all those points and more have been made by the representatives of the tobacco growers and manufacturers in meetings.

Mr. Nixon: What are you going to do about it? You do not think it is a valid point? All you do is take cheap shots at the government of Canada.

TECHNICAL EDUCATION

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister of Education follows from the questions raised in the House the other day by my colleague the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen). It has to do with the dramatic decline, as I am sure the minister is now aware, in the number of students who plan to enrol next year in technical courses.

We have done a survey of a number of boards of education and have found as follows: Enrolment in technical education courses through the board of education in South Niagara is down by a third; in London, it is down by 43 per cent; in Oxford county, by 30 per cent; in Middlesex county, by 21 per cent; in Elgin county, by 41 per cent; in Hamilton, by 32 per cent, and at the Lakehead, by 20 per cent. In Etobicoke, five of six schools showed declines of 42, 50, 54, 61 and 68 per cent in the plans of students to enrol in technical courses.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: Given that the alleged purpose of the secondary education review project recommendations was to increase the strength of the links between the work place and education, how does the minister explain this extraordinary decline in planned enrolment next year in technical courses? What does she plan to do to turn this devastating situation around?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the honourable member has looked at the scheduling within the schools' curriculum proposal and whether there is some relative ease of access to all the programs. That matter is of concern to me.

The teachers I have talked to who have raised this issue have suggested very strongly that their own schools and they themselves have a responsibility to discuss with the principals of their schools the ways in which ease of access might be demonstrated more clearly to students, so that students at the second cut of their determination of the content of their courses for the next year might consider more clearly the option of attending industry-based or business-based courses in the grade 9 or 10 experience they hope to have.

Obviously there are some obstacles being raised. We are looking at this and trying to determine whether there is a universal obstacle. At this point, I cannot see a universal obstacle but there appear to be some impediments on an irregular basis across the system.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

We will be examining this problem. As I told the member before, we will be doing it in as accurate a fashion and as fully as we possibly can.

Mr. Rae: This matter is of some urgency. A number of school boards are facing the difficult question of whether they must lay off teachers of shop courses who have been teaching in the system for some time. Is the minister aware that a number of teachers are being threatened with layoffs and that a number of students are not going to get access to those courses?

We are looking at a major change in the anatomy, the makeup and the quality of education for a number of our students. Is the minister aware of that, and what does she intend to do about it? The situation is not one that can wait for what she calls the second cut. It is one that needs to be responded to right away.

We are looking at a major change which she herself has initiated. The change has backfired. It has not produced the results she anticipated; it is going in the opposite direction. It is working against the interests of those students who need and want a technical education. It is something the minister should act on right away. What is she going to do?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I do not believe there is within the restructuring of the program an absolute obstacle to the participation of students who want to participate in industrial training or business-related courses. In fact, we have provided the framework in which it can be encouraged. I would anticipate the schools themselves would modify their internal structures to facilitate that participation.

It is a matter of real concern to me and one that is under study at the present time. Of course, the member will continue to suggest that what we are attempting to do is to make the school system more elitist. He should be a great judge of elitism, considering his background in education.

What we are really trying to do is attempting to provide the necessary foundation for learning for all students in this province in whatever direction they wish to proceed after their school experience. We shall continue to do that.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, given this massive anticipated decline in enrolment in technical courses and the fact that both the Scarborough and Etobicoke boards are contemplating laying off 15 to 20 technical teachers, I wonder whether this does not fly in the face of the Treasurer's budget paper, the human resources section on economic transformation, which says, "Innovative firms require personnel capable of using technically advanced equipment and of adjusting to frequent changes in products and processes."

Is not what the minister is doing and allowing to happen in her ministry directly the opposite of the prebudget paper published by her colleague?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe it is. We have a great deal of indication from a very large number of extremely knowledgeable people who have looked at the requirements of future employees in all kinds of industries and have determined that what those employees will probably need most is the educational background that has provided them with the will and the opportunity to learn how to learn, to learn where they need to go to get the experience or knowledge they will require, and to become as flexible and adaptable as possible.

10:40 a.m.

They demonstrate very clearly that what we should not be doing is attempting to train any students in a narrow focus at a very early age within our secondary school system. We do want to have the opportunity provided to them to understand what business and industry are about and what the tools of industry look like, and we certainly want them to understand what their responsibilities will be in working, whatever they choose to do after they leave school. We want them to have that industrial and business experience.

The regional offices have been monitoring this closely. They have information that will be coming forward within the next few days, and I believe they will have some recommendations for me as well.

Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, the minister refers to preparing students with a broad range of educational experience, a sense of flexibility and a capacity for adaptability. The interesting thing about what is happening is that the signals she has been sending have not given that message, because the overwhelming drift is away from all the life skills and work skills electives and away from the technological options. She has betrayed the technical directions of this province.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Allen: We expected of the secondary education review project reforms that there would be an integration of the work place and academic study, and now the signals have been otherwise.

How is the minister going to advise the boards of this province? For example, Etobicoke expects to lay off 10 teachers; Lakehead expects layoffs will be necessary; 29 teachers will have to be displaced at Peel and perhaps half of them laid off; tech shops will be closed in Peel as well as elsewhere. How is she going to advise boards, making very difficult decisions at this time about layoffs and the closing of shops, in order not to prejudice next year's education and subsequent years' education in the technical departments?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the honourable member that no school board in this province that has an adjacent separate school board should ever consider the closing of shops, because those shops should be available to the separate schools.

None the less, as I said very clearly five minutes ago, before the latest dissertation by the professor from Hamilton, we really are monitoring this situation and we are attempting to find an appropriate solution.

There was no intent and is no intent to move in the kind of direction the leader of the third party keeps telling the people of Ontario the Ontario Schools Intermediate and Senior Divisions guidelines are moving towards. We are really providing for the very first time the kind of educational experience that is relevant to all the students who study at all levels of difficulty within the secondary school system.

That is our aim and our objective and with the co-operation of the teachers of the province, who really are capable of doing this, as are the administrators of the province, we will succeed.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, it is nice to hear the minister stating for the record that she wants to see the leftovers going to the separate school system in this province.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I did not say that.

Mr. Rae: That is a good message to be sending out.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That is an untrue statement, and he is wrong.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. McClellan: That is what you said, and it is exactly the situation.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of personal privilege: That is not what I said. The leader of the third party knows full well that is not what I said, and it is unfortunate that he continues to try to distort.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

CHEQUE-CASHING CENTRES

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Premier. My question is about a number of organizations that we have raised in this House and others have raised outside, organizations whose whole reason for existing is to make money on the backs of our poorest and most vulnerable citizens.

I am thinking of organizations such as the National Money Mart, which, as I am sure the minister will be aware, charges money for the cashing of welfare cheques; companies whose sole purpose is to charge people for the collection of illegal rents, and an organization that charges injured workers for appearances before the Workers' Compensation Board and then demands a share of what the worker has been denied if the worker wins an appeal process.

I would like to ask the Deputy Premier what the government is going to do about these parasites, these companies that are simply making money on the backs of poor people? All of them are working in areas where the government could act and where the government itself could be providing a service free of charge.

I would like to ask the minister to do two things. Will he take steps to make the kinds of things that are being done unlawful in Ontario? Will he take steps to see that the public sector and the public service provide these services at no expense, which is the way it should be done for those people who do not have very much money in the first place?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, if memory serves me correctly, this question was raised in the House about a week ago with the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie). Indeed, during that exchange, the matter of jurisdiction was raised.

I would also point out it is my understanding the federal minister has indicated federal action is going to be taken in this matter, which seems to me to be the effective way because of the issues that are involved. No doubt we will be hearing more shortly with respect to that type of legislation.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, will the minister not agree it is time we had some legislative insecticide for some of these parasites who are preying on people and that some of them are directly within his control?

Is he aware of Disabled Workers of Ontario, working just on compensation claims, which is charging membership rates of $20, fees of $50 and percentages on what it gets back, and which hangs around the waiting rooms in the WCB offices to try to promote itself? It is not just happening here in Toronto; they promote themselves around the province. There are offices in Hamilton.

The government could step in now and say that practice is illegal. The minister could step in and give money to the legal clinics in Ontario and to the legitimate disabled workers' groups which do not charge to undertake that kind of service. Will he not do that? Will he not make this practice illegal in the province? It is entirely within his jurisdiction to do so.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the honourable member that we have these matters under review, and I will be glad to discuss them further with the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay).

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, if the minister cannot answer the question, I certainly can, because when Disabled Workers of Ontario in Hamilton went under last year I was contacted by the Hamilton WCB office asking me whether I would take over the 80 or so files for workers the company left stranded across Hamilton. The Hamilton WCB office was kind enough to deliver those files to me, because this organization had left workers high and dry across Hamilton and they had no one to turn to.

My question for the minister is very specific on the issue of these organizations dealing with injured workers. There is an area where he can have direct input, and that is where former WCB employees leave their positions to set up private consulting practices, for employers in many cases and in some cases for employees, for a price, directly after having left the employment of the WCB.

I wonder when the government is going to introduce some guidelines about how former WCB employees and former civil servants must develop a rule of conduct in their dealings with those very organizations immediately after they have left their employment. When is the government going to develop conflict of interest guidelines for those employees and former employees?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, this matter was raised some months ago in connection with a specific issue, although not the one to which the honourable member makes reference, and the judgement call with respect to the propriety of former civil servants or former crown agency employees working in this area. I am not able to provide any definite information, but now that the matter has been raised once again, I can assure the member I will see she is brought up to date with respect to where those matters rest.

10:50 a.m.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, the minister will remember another parasitic service, the Rent Recovery Service, which, as I pointed out last week, has made a net profit of $150,000 from charging a fee of 50 per cent of any rebates of illegal rents it collects on behalf of tenants.

In view of the fact that the minister in charge obviously has some kind of a logjam under way, with the policy issue tied up in a royal commission that has been busy since November 1982, and since the minister has been unable to give us a report of an investigation from his own business practices division which I believe started in November 1983 -- he has had November, December, January, February, March and now April to complete this investigation -- I wonder if the minister could intervene with his colleague to try to find out what the problem is over there and why we cannot get any answers or information on what the logjam is all about.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, there is no question in my mind of the leadership that has been provided in that ministry by the incumbent. I feel when he is ready to make announcements with respect to this matter, they will be made. The member should have some --

Mr. McClellan: This is precisely the problem, isn't it?

RELIGIOUS SERVICES FOR INMATES

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Correctional Services. Can the minister tell this House whether he feels it is important, wherever possible, to involve prisoners in religious services in correctional facilities across this province?

Hon. Mr. Leluk: Mr. Speaker, in answer to that question I would say we do agree and this is being done in our institutions. I believe the honourable member wrote to me on this matter on two occasions and I replied to her.

Ms. Copps: If the ministry is concerned, I wonder if the minister can explain to this House why he has had the matter of the Hamilton-Wentworth Detention Centre under review now for almost a two-year period and why his ministry, if it is so concerned about involving prisoners in religious services, constructed a multimillion-dollar jail in the city of Hamilton where prisoners cannot use the chapel on a regular basis because it is outside the secure area. Who was the chapel built for anyway?

Hon. Mr. Leluk: As the member knows full well, in our institutions we have inmates who are security risks and from time to time we --

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Most of them are outside.

Hon. Mr. Leluk: No, they are not.

If the member wants an answer to the question, we have people in the institutions who are a security risk and pose this risk. Therefore, we have to be very careful about the movement of these people within the institutions. The member fully understands that, I am sure.

Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, quite simply, for those who are not serious security risks, will the minister not place a single guard near the entrance or within the chapel in the Hamilton-Wentworth Detention Centre to make it possible for visitors and prisoners to use that religious facility, which is a very beautiful little chapel?

Hon. Mr. Leluk: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, we do use the chapel in that institution. However, this is an institution with some people inside who are security risks and we cannot just freely move those people about in the institution.

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Can the minister explain why his ministry has allowed our provincial roads and highways to deteriorate to the point where the Canadian Construction Association states that Ontario roads are now entering a critical stage in their life cycle, that the present deteriorating condition is costing the average motorist $97 a year in extra repairs, reduced gas mileage and tire wear, and that almost 2,000 kilometres of the present highway are below provincial standards? Why has the minister allowed that to happen?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, the member for Cornwall can read the The Road Information Program of Canada recommendations in a number of ways. I believe the TRIP Canada report states eight per cent of the provincial highways in Ontario need work done on them. To me, that means 92 per cent of the highways are in perfect condition. That is a pretty good record, better than any other jurisdiction.

Mr. Samis: The same report also states that more than one third of our highways in the next five years will deteriorate from good to fair or poor condition. What does the minister propose to do about that situation in view of the fact that his budget has now reached the lowest level in 25 years as a percentage of the provincial budget, in view of the fact that for the last three years his road budget has been virtually frozen and he has said next year does not look any better, and in view of the fact that the present backlog of roads in need of repair is not being attended to?

Hon. Mr. Snow: We are giving a much higher priority to the maintenance programs in our budgeting within the overall ministry budget. It is not my intention to let the existing highway system deteriorate. It is not deteriorating. We are not able to construct new highways or added capacity because of budget constraints. That is quite obvious. The maintenance and the resurfacing work we are doing are being maintained at a reasonable level.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, if my memory serves me correctly, the TRIP Canada study concluded that the worst highway in all Ontario was that roller-coaster of Highway 417 east of Ottawa, between Ottawa and the Quebec border. What, if any, plans does the minister have to repair that badly deteriorated stretch of fairly new highway?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall any comments by TRIP Canada on any highway in general or on Highway 417. I do not quite know what section the member is referring to. Is he referring to the Queensway?

Mr. Conway: Highway 417 in Ottawa. Do you mean you are not aware of its condition?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I am aware of the soil condition problems we have had there.

Mr. Conway: What are you doing about it?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Ongoing programs in the ministry will correct that situation.

PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEES

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. At a meeting earlier this morning with members of two locals from the Windsor area the minister was asked to provide a legislative remedy for the problem of injured workers who are probationary workers and whose jobs are terminated before they can return to the job from their injuries. Instead of offering such a remedy, the ministry indicated there was a remedy through arbitration.

Can the minister make a commitment in the House this morning that this matter of probationary workers who face this kind of discrimination will be addressed in the revised Workers Compensation Act which I understand is to come forward this spring? Can he assure this House the commitment will go beyond a restatement of the potential remedies contained in the Ontario Human Rights Code?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, as of this date, Friday, April 13, I cannot give the assurances the honourable member is looking for. I agree with him about the seriousness of the situation. The meeting we had this morning was an excellent one. The representatives from the three locals from Windsor all brought forward very reasoned arguments and documented those arguments. Because of the nature of the meeting this morning, we have to take a good, hard look at their concerns and at possible remedies.

However, the suggestion was made at the meeting this morning that there are remedies through the Ontario Labour Relations Board. We strongly urged the locals in question to file the appropriate grievances and to take this matter forward in that fashion. That does not mean we are not going to address it otherwise, but there is an avenue there. In the nature of what they told us this morning, we feel they might have an excellent case before the Ontario Labour Relations Board. We strongly suggested they should do it.

Furthermore, the activities of the member have assisted to a considerable extent in remedying the circumstances. The publicity that has been brought to this problem in the media by the efforts of the member has created a marked improvement in the situation.

Mr. Wrye: I want to remind the minister of a comment by Professor Paul Weiler almost four years ago in his report, Reshaping Workers' Compensation for Ontario, "I believe that the Workers' Compensation Act should contain an explicit prohibition against and an effective remedy for discrimination...it is improper -- and it should be illegal -- to penalize an employee for having exercised his statutory right."

That is what Professor Paul Weiler said in his report. Is the minister prepared to make a commitment in this House that those words of Professor Paul Weiler will be reflected in legislative action in the new Workers' Compensation Act?

11 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: We are right in the middle of coming up with some final amendments to the Workers' Compensation Act. We hope to be able to bring those forward in this Legislature in the not too distant future.

It is rather complex. There is a large number of amendments. I do not think it would be appropriate for me to start cherry-picking those amendments in this Legislature until we have all of them put into a total package. Before we bring it into the Legislature, we will be conferring with injured workers' groups, with the employers' council and so on.

I would like to follow the procedures we set out in respect of the Workers' Compensation Board and present all the amendments as a total package.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, the minister will know it is obvious what is happening in these cases is that companies are taking advantage of large numbers of unemployed, that workers are viewed by some of these companies as a dime a dozen and they can fire them for whatever reason they determine during that probationary period. That is the problem, whether it be at Chrysler, Central Stampings, National Auto Radiator or at many other companies across the province where this practice is occurring.

In view of that, why is he reluctant to take action to protect workers when the problem is so absolutely clear? Why is he reluctant to take action against these companies to stop this practice?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, there is no argument whatsoever between the honourable members and me as to the seriousness of the problem. That was magnified this morning by excellent presentations by various labour leaders from the Windsor area. I commend them for that.

We happen to believe there is currently in our statutes a course of action for the locals to take. We are suggesting they take that course of action. They have not done so yet. Let us ascertain first whether or not our present statutes will handle the matter before we start bringing loads of additional legislation into this Legislature. We should be looking at less legislation, rather than increased amounts.

ASSISTANCE FOR SENIORS AND DISABLED PERSONS

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services. The minister will be aware that the Canada-Ontario employment development program grant will run out for the HEED program on May 30. HEED, which stands for Helping Etobicoke's Elderly and Disabled, has applied to his ministry for assistance to keep operating.

Can the minister inform the House whether or not this program, which helps seniors to remain in their homes and not be institutionalized, will receive any funding from his ministry?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, first, the funding for that organization came through COED and through the Ministry of Labour, never through my ministry. Second, my deputy minister gave the member an answer yesterday in the standing committee on public accounts.

Mr. Philip: In fact, the deputy minister said in committee he had no knowledge of it, but he would contact the minister and the minister would answer in this House. I would suggest the minister --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Philip: -- read Hansard and not misinform the House. Is the minister not aware that --

Hon. Mr. Drea: That is not what my deputy minister told me.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary, please.

Mr. Philip: I do not care what the deputy minister told you.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Philip: The fact is it is in Hansard. Read Hansard.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary.

Mr. Philip: As I was saying when I was so rudely interrupted by the minister, who does not even read Hansard, is the minister aware that in contrast to the Ontario average of 10 per cent, at the present time 17.7 per cent of the population of Etobicoke are over the age of 65 or in some way disabled?

If the federal government wishes to shelve senior citizens and the disabled in institutions and not keep them in their own homes, why does he not at least take the initiative that was asked of him by this organization to have some assistance at the provincial level to keep these people out of institutions?

Hon. Mr. Drea: The member is obviously either misinformed or has no memory. The federal government cut off a number of institutions in Etobicoke last fall and last spring. I can look at one of my party whips, the member for Lakeshore (Mr. Kolyn). He was in to see me on behalf of his organizations and they were funded.

I am looking around for the vice-chairman of the standing committee on social development, the member for Humber (Mr. Kells). He was in to see me with his list of organizations serving the elderly that had lost their funding. I funded them.

I look around at my friend the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko). He was in with a list of organizations all providing services for the elderly that were cut off by the federal government. I funded them.

I find it very peculiar that the member is so late. As my deputy told the member yesterday, we will look into it.

Mr. Philip: On a point of order: I have written to the minister on several occasions. Unfortunately he has never responded.

YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to ask the Attorney General about the Young Offenders Act. It has come to my attention that yesterday His Honour Judge Karswick in Brampton declined to hear a case under the act because he considered himself to be without status as a judge to do so.

In the opinion of Judge Karswick, Bill 149, which declared the provincial court a youth court for the purposes of the Young Offenders Act, apparently made no similar provision in respect of provincial court judges for the purposes of the Young Offenders Act. Apparently, that interpretation was followed by Judge Stauth of the same court. He also accepted the reasoning and declined to sit in cases in this area.

Is the Attorney General aware of this apparent difficulty? What is his advice about how this problem is going to be sorted out, if it does exist?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, with great respect to these learned family court judges, we do not agree with their interpretation. The issue has been raised and it must be addressed seriously. At present we are planning a mandamus application that will be heard in the Supreme Court of Ontario on Tuesday of next week.

AMATEUR HOCKEY

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. After the McPherson report, the Hockey Ontario Development Committee was formed. Since that time one association after another has pulled away from it until on March 31, 1984, the Hockey Ontario Development Committee folded its tent. In other words, it collapsed.

What type of organization do we now have in place to fill the vacuum left after the collapse of the committee to oversee hockey development and see that some uniformity in the application of the rules is in effect in Ontario? What type of committee does the minister have to take its place?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, I reported to the House some weeks ago that we had invited Mr. Syl Apps to work with the various hockey leagues -- the Metropolitan Toronto Hockey League, the Ontario Minor Hockey Association and the six or seven others -- to see what kind of mechanism or organization could be created that would be acceptable both to the leagues and to us, the kind of organization we could finance.

We felt the Hockey Ontario Development Committee did a tremendous job over its three-year lifespan in developing trainers' institutes and coaching and refereeing institutes, in parent education and so on; so we believe it is essential for the best development of hockey in Ontario to have a successor organization to the HODC. I cannot at this time tell the honourable member precisely what the successor organization will be.

11:10 a.m.

As the member for Sudbury (Mr. Martel) knows, some of the bosses of amateur hockey in Ontario have their own ideas about what should and should not be. We are still continuing to work with them. We are committed to the idea of having some kind of a successor mechanism to look after the further development of coaches, trainers, referees, parent education and so on. We feel it is absolutely essential. I share the view of the member for Sudbury that, among other things, the incidence of serious injury is at an unacceptable level, and we fully intend to do something about it.

Mr. Martel: What type of funding has the minister provided in the past to determine the number of medical problems that are arising out of hockey? What type of assistance is he getting from the Ministry of Health in order to get permission to go to the hospitals to gather that information so that, once it is gathered, we can then do an analysis to try to determine whether the accidents that occur arise out of improper equipment or some violation of the rules of the game? In other words, what type of funding has the minister provided and what type of funding is he prepared to provide to do a proper of assessment of what is going on? Finally, can the minister tell us what the medical costs were last year for injuries arising out of hockey accidents?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: We have really financed three thrusts to look into the whole question of injuries.

We are financing entirely the study of the University of Waterloo under Professor Bishop, the man who is monitoring hockey injuries right across Canada. This is really a service for all Canadians, not just those of us here in Ontario. He is monitoring the injuries and looking at the causes.

We are also partly financing the study at Sunnybrook Medical Centre by Dr. Tator, who is looking at the number of injuries, not necessarily the causes of injuries.

As I announced here about two weeks ago, we are financing entirely the sports medicine centre, which is certainly going to be playing a very major role in this.

It is not for lack of funds or support from government that the hockey world is not moving as fast as it should be. We are solidly behind them and, as I say, we are committed to this thing; we are not going to be relaxing on our oars.

HOTEL LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I am sure you will recall that yesterday I raised a question concerning the unfortunate strike between 10 of the major hotels of this city and 3,500 employees. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) was not in the House at that time, so we did not get a direct answer or a statement from him yesterday.

The Minister of Labour was in the House today, but we did not receive a statement from him today either. I was wondering when the government of Ontario was going to inform the House.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

PETITIONS

Mr. Kolyn: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce petitions on behalf of the following members: Scarborough North (Mr. Wells), Cochrane South (Mr. Pope), Scarborough East (Mrs. Birch) and Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. McCague).

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The Russian school system is pretty good.

Mr. Kolyn: I believe the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) was there. Why don't you ask him?

EQUAL PAY FOR WORK OF EQUAL VALUE

Mr. Kolyn: The petition reads as follows:

"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:

"Whereas women in Ontario still earn only 60 per cent of the wages of men; whereas women are still concentrated in a very small number of occupations; and whereas unanimous approval of the concept of equal pay for work of equal value was expressed in the Ontario Legislature in October 1983,

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to amend Bill 141 to include equal pay for work of equal value and to introduce mandatory affirmative action."

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by 14 residents of the city of Etobicoke, which reads as follows:

"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 petition the Ontario Legislature to amend Bill 141 to include equal pay for work of equal value and to introduce mandatory affirmative action."

Unlike the member for Lakeshore (Mr. Kolyn), I can say without hesitation that I am not just presenting this motion, I am also in favour of it.

HAMILTON GO-ALRT

Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the following petition from 3,595 residents in Hamilton West who are aggrieved over the route it is proposed that the government of Ontario advanced light rail transit system will take and especially over the fact that they were never consulted and only found out about this decision after it was published in the press and journalists came knocking on their doors.

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned taxpayers of the city of Hamilton and region, wish to express our opposition to the proposed GO-ALRT system anywhere on York Street, on ground, above ground or below ground, for the following reasons:

"1. It is an untried, unproven, driverless, unsafe system.

"2. It would completely disrupt our neighbourhood.

"3. It would constitute a misuse of our tax dollars.

"4. It would destroy the quality of life in the York Street area.

"5. It would cause our homes to be expropriated or devalued.

"6. It would cause noise pollution.

"7. It would force businesses to relocate.

"8. It would cause disruption of traffic.

"9. It would ruin our beautiful entrance to the city and the beauty of Dundurn park.

"10. It would cause litter pollution in the vicinity."

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that Mr. Rotenberg and Mr. Cureatz exchange places in the order of precedence for private members' public business.

Motion agreed to.

MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDINARY BUSINESS

Mr. G. I. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Nixon, that pursuant to standing order 34(a), the ordinary business of the House be set aside to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, that being the fact that the future of the Ontario flue-cured tobacco industry has been jeopardized by severe increases in tobacco taxes introduced by the government of Ontario and the government of Canada; that initial negotiations of the Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board for the marketing of tobacco this year indicated a reduction in crop sizes of 33 per cent; that such a reduction would result in the loss of 5,000 jobs in harvest and labour required by the processing plant, and that the future viability of this once-prosperous industry, currently representing 2,550 farmers in Ontario, is being destroyed with no alternative options for crop substitutions being offered by the provincial government.

Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 34(a), the honourable member has up to five minutes to state his case.

Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Having consulted with my colleagues the House leaders of the other two parties. I understand there is no objection and they are quite anxious that the debate go forward. With permission, I suggest we might dispense with the five-minute reasons why it should go forward so we could proceed with the debate without further delay.

Mr. Speaker: I find the motion to be in order. Therefore, the question to be decided is, shall the debate proceed?

Motion agreed to.

11:20 a.m.

TOBACCO INDUSTRY

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that this Legislature has seen fit to set this morning aside to discuss the tobacco industry in Ontario. It plays a major role in my riding of Haldimand-Norfolk and that part of Ontario.

It is unfortunate that we have come to see the industry in its present position. It is not the first time this side of the House has brought to the attention of the government that the agricultural industry is in dire straits. I believe we initiated an emergency debate some time ago in regard to other areas of the agricultural industry. Last fall we asked for an emergency debate on the beef industry, which was not granted. So today it gives me a lot of satisfaction, not pleasure, to have the opportunity to bring to this Legislature the problems of an industry that has turned a blowing-sand area of Ontario into a productive industry and perhaps one of the most rewarding industries Canada has ever had. This came about because they have a fine marketing board and were well organized. Over the years they have provided leadership, going back some 27 years.

The problem arises from the high taxation that has been brought about by government, not only this government but also the federal government. They have increased that taxation at a time when we should be encouraging sales. With the cost of energy rising at a very rapid rate and with energy of such importance to the industry, their costs have increased to the point where they cannot afford to take a cut in production such as is proposed this year.

In 1982, 230 million pounds of tobacco was produced. That was the quota established by the marketing board. In 1983, it was reduced to 215 million pounds. This year it is going to be reduced by a further 33 per cent to the neighbourhood of between 145 million and 155 million pounds. That means a reduction of income of approximately $114 million.

The farmers have incurred high costs modernizing their equipment and bringing in new kilns. Incidentally, a lot of this equipment is manufactured in the area. There has been a strong propensity to utilize and harness the resources we have in the area. The large quota reduction will put a tremendous strain on many of those farmers.

As I indicated in my question to the minister this morning, and I sent a copy of an article to him, this dream is turning into a nightmare. I am receiving letters from my constituents expressing those very same fears in the strongest possible ways. I hope it does not happen, but it well could turn into as drastic an action as happened in the South Cayuga incident where the government was trying to force people to accept the use of land and not using the proper legislation. I know that feeling is there. I am not using it as a threat, because I feel we have to sit down and deal with this rationally.

I know the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell) and the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) have been in the area many times. The Premier (Mr. Davis) was down there less than two years ago, on June 23, 1982, to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board. He remarked at that time:

"For the future, we have much to look forward to. The tobacco industry is heading for a record year and the government which I have the honour to lead will continue working to support the agriculture community as a whole. I congratulate you on your first 25 years. May the next quarter century be as successful. I know you will dedicate your best efforts to achieving that."

Since the Premier was down that evening, and I was there along with 2,500 other tobacco farmers, the tobacco tax in Ontario has been doubled and that money is going into the coffers of Ontario. I do not think it shows the heart and soul of this government is protecting an industry that has been so valuable to the overall economy of Ontario, Canada and our export market.

I would like to point out that we have met with the tobacco board in the past year. I believe there were members from all sides of the House at that meeting, which goes back to July or August. There were the member for Elgin (Mr. McNeil), the member for Oxford (Mr. Treleaven), the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon), myself and federal members. It was brought to our attention then that the industry was in serious difficulty. They asked us to use all the expertise at our disposal to come up with solutions to this problem.

The purpose of the discussion this morning is to come up with rational ways in which we can deal with it. We understand world production is increasing. We have to compete with Brazilian producers who are producing about 500 million pounds this year. Their cost of drying a kiln with oil is $4 to $5, while ours runs at $400; with natural gas, it is about $125 less.

I question how much of that energy cost represents taxes, which add to the cost of overall operation. As any farmer knows, energy plays an important role in producing and preparing the ground for crops, and much of that is in taxes. Everywhere one turns there is tax upon tax.

There is an editorial by one of the better writers for the tobacco industry, Dave MacLaren; I will not read it because it is long, but it hits the point. I will send it to the Minister of Agriculture and Food and the Treasurer since it shows the concerns that are being expressed about being taxed out of business. That is the concern I want to express this morning.

Nobody is against taxing in a reasonable manner. We all feel we should pay our fair share, but when one has to pay tax upon tax, increasing costs by 167 per cent while everything else is held at five per cent, that is ridiculous. I do not think we should have to stand for it. It is putting the industry out of business.

This morning I also have a brochure, History and Holidays in the Rich Lands Behind the Lakes, which has a picture of a tobacco field. I bring it to the attention of every member to show how neat those tobacco farms are. Anything that is kept as neat requires a lot of labour and energy. I put it forward so members can see what has happened.

To go back to the history of the area, there is an article in the Canadian Tobacco Grower, dated November 1983. The editor is David MacLaren. It indicates the magic of tobacco and shows a picture of the fields in the area in the early 1900s when there was nothing but blowing sand. They had cut down the forests and there were a few straggly trees and sand.

It sums it up this way: "As a disillusioned farmer remarked in the late 1920s, 'I sow 10 bushels of rye to get five bushels back.'" That indicates how far that area has come with tobacco in the last 64 years, from the 1920s. They have managed to get a fair return for their product while being good stewards of the soil. They are certainly worthy of the support of this government and this province through some financial assistance -- maybe interest assistance -- and lowering of taxes to make sure the industry survives.

11:30 a.m.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, it is a good thing we are having an emergency debate on this issue. There is no question that there is a major problem facing tobacco producers. Frankly, I find myself in some difficulty in speaking on this issue, and every other person in this House will probably find himself in that same position to a very substantial extent.

On the one hand, I recognize the hardship that is being created to the tobacco producers and ultimately to the thousands of people who work in that industry. I know these tobacco producers have had pride in their operation and have worked hard, and now that pride is turning into despair. An industry that brought in some $200 million to $300 million is certainly reducing, and I think anyone would agree that its long-term prospects are not very bright. That is true for the 30,000 or 40,000 people who are involved in this industry as well.

In addition, if we look only at the one side of the coin, more than $1 billion in total government revenue in Canada is derived from this industry, and therefore one cannot help but have some real concern about what is taking place and what it is doing to the people involved in this industry.

On the other hand, I think all of us recognize too that smoking is a dangerous habit. The best estimates are that some 30,000 people in Canada are dying prematurely, losing their lives because of smoking. I think we also recognize that there are huge costs -- particularly health costs, but all kinds of costs -- to society because of this habit. They are costs not just to the individuals, although there is a cost to them, but also to society through the Ontario health insurance plan and in a great variety of ways.

In fact, it is estimated by some groups that the costs to society exceed the revenues, and I believe that may well be true if we look at all the costs, if we look at the premature deaths of trained people and so on.

Mr. G. I. Miller: How about liquor?

Mr. Swart: Yes, there are real problems there too; I do not deny that.

I know that to a very large extent this resolution is aimed at the taxes on tobacco, and I think we all recognize they have some bearing on the consumption of tobacco; the price to the consumer obviously has some bearing. But at the present time the economy of this nation is having some bearing on it as well. We have 1.5 million people unemployed; many others are only partially employed or were getting $12 an hour and now are getting $5 an hour, and they have cut back on their consumption of tobacco. In addition, there is the trend against smoking.

I am not at all sure we should say that taxes should be cut to encourage a greater consumption of tobacco. I am sure most members of this House will be aware of the report of the Ontario Council of Health, which was tabled in 1982, called Smoking and Health in Ontario: A Need for Balance. It is worth reading. I hope all members will read it. It will tell them a bit about the health consequences of smoking tobacco.

I do not want to spend an undue amount of time on this. The report says smoking causes death, disease and disability, and then it goes on to give the rates. The overall death rate for male smokers is 1.7 times higher than for nonsmokers, and it is 1.3 times higher for females. The risk of dying between the ages of 35 and 65 is 2.5 times higher for daily smokers.

Then it goes on to say in recommendation 4 -- this is a recommendation to the government, and I am sure this government has to struggle with it just as any government would -- "lt is recommended that the government of Ontario take action to ensure that the retail price of cigarettes be doubled within a 12-month period by means of a three-phase increase in basic taxation on tobacco products and ensure through taxation that the price of cigarettes keeps up with inflation thereafter."

That is a recommendation the Minister of Agriculture and Food, along with the rest of the cabinet, has to deal with. I do not envy the job the government has in dealing with this matter.

I would suggest to the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk that when he gets up with all his concerns, instead of making an interjection when I ask a supplementary, he should state his position on the recommendations. He should state whether he thinks steps should be taken to promote a reduction in the number of smokers and a reduction in smoking. He should deal with it. One cannot deal with just one side of this issue.

The question is, 'What do we do?" Quite frankly, we have to try to keep our share of the world market. I do not think we should try to promote it in areas where people are not smoking or are not smoking much at the present time, but if it is going to be used, we should keep our share of the world market. More research should be done on less hazardous forms of smoking, on filters and many of those things so we can eliminate some of the health dangers.

Most of all, we must provide alternative crops. This government must be willing to do some economic planning in our society so there are alternatives for those farmers. It cannot leave everything to the marketplace. Government has to involve itself and provide the solutions in our society for these questions.

Then there is the question of self-sufficiency. We can grow more tomatoes in this country if both the provincial and federal governments really mean their rhetoric about self-sufficiency. Although it is not a big crop, we can grow more strawberries. We could even have a sugar beet industry. I recognize some of the soil that is growing tobacco is not totally suited for growing sugar beets, but we lost our total sugar beet industry in this province and nation. Maybe we should try to revive it.

We should be expanding the production of peanuts by all kinds of incentives. They tell me the consumption of peanuts in this nation is worth something like $100 million. It could be a $100-million industry. Peanuts grow in the same type of soil. With proper planning, if the tobacco acreage drops -- or hectares, as we call them now -- by 50 per cent over the next 15 years, we can use that land for growing peanuts.

I have a newspaper item here about the whole peanut industry. It is at the point where it can take off, but the minister is going to have to give greater incentives than we have had in the past. He is going to have to fight the way the fight that took place to get insurance was waged. He is going to have to subsidize the machinery and get a stabilization program for those peanut producers. It can be done if he has the will, and we can keep those farmers viable.

In conclusion, I will not fight to maintain the level of tobacco consumption. I will support voluntary measures to reduce the number of smokers and the tobacco consumed. It has to be --

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): I thank the honourable member. His time has expired.

Mr. Swart: I have one more sentence, Mr. Speaker.

It has to be an orderly reduction, and I will fight to maintain a viable agricultural operation of one kind or another for all those tobacco farmers.

11:40 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I have been pleased to listen to the contributions made by the member for Haldimand-Norfolk and the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart). The member for Haldimand-Norfolk's interest in and concern for the tobacco growers is something that is well known to me in that we have discussed it on a number of occasions.

I will not spend long on the taxation issue, because that is a matter for my colleague the Treasurer to address, except to offer these comments. The Treasurer and I met with representatives of the Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board of Ontario and representatives of the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers Council in September of last year and again a couple of weeks ago.

On both those occasions, and I am sure on others when I have not been present, both the growers and the manufacturers have made very clear to the Treasurer their concern about the level of taxation in Ontario and in Canada on tobacco products. As a matter of fact, there is a task force at work now to advise the federal Minister of Finance on taxation matters as they relate to tobacco, as well as to alcohol, wine and beer.

I recall at the most recent meeting the Treasurer made it very clear that he shares their concern for finding a way to control or to end the spiralling effect, which is currently the case. I believe the Treasurer is working hard at finding a way to attempt to address -- if not entirely, at least in part -- those concerns, as he must do each year. He works equally hard to strike a proper balance between his revenue requirements for the expenditures of the ministries and his priorities for the economy.

Earlier this morning, I went on at some length -- and I apologize again that it was a lengthy answer, but I thought it required a lengthy and full answer -- about what we are doing with the growers and with the manufacturers to attempt to shore up our exports. I want to point out that over the course of the last 10 to 13 years, our exports have grown rather markedly until the last couple of years.

I would point out to the members that whatever impact a decline in exports has this year on the decline in acreage; it has nothing whatsoever to do with Ontario or Canadian taxation. It may have to do with taxation in the United Kingdom where the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Rt. Hon. Mr. Lawson, has just recently imposed an additional tax of 10 pence per 20 cigarette pack. That is beyond the 17-pence additional tax imposed in 1981 by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Geoffrey Howe.

Mr. Kerrio: What is their tax in real money?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: It amounts to about four per cent of the revenue of the government of the United Kingdom at the present time, which is down from 14 per cent in the early 1960s.

It has to do with the competitive qualities of Brazilian tobacco, a country which has gone from very limited production a decade or two ago to the point where it is now one of the major producers in the world. It has to do with the reintroduction into the United Kingdom of tobacco from Zimbabwe, the former colony of Southern Rhodesia. It has to do with the production of tobacco in India, South Korea, Malawi and in a number of countries which have a much lower cost of production. As the member for Haldimand-Norfolk quite properly pointed out, these countries have a much better tariff when it comes to entering the European Economic Community.

Members will recall that we lost the imperial preferential tariffs some years ago when Britain joined the community. And we had additional duties applied to us at a time when countries such as Brazil, Zimbabwe, Malawi, and so forth, which are in the developing world, got preferential treatment compared to us. So there are a number of factors at play out there, quite unrelated to the matter of taxation in Ontario or in Canada, that have impacted on our exports of tobacco.

I repeat that the purpose of our three-day visit to the United Kingdom was very simply to impress upon the buyers in the United Kingdom that we fully intend to do everything possible to remain competitive in the world market, particularly with respect to the quality of the tobacco we produce. The honourable members opposite and on this side of the House, such as my colleague the member for Oxford, who represent tobacco-producing areas, will know of the efforts that have been made over the last 10 to 20 years to improve the quality of the tobacco we produce to meet the demands of the domestic as well as the export market.

We also assured them we are very conscious of the need to remain price competitive. We have certain advantages with respect to the quality of tobacco, the price of transportation and the quality of the pack here in Ontario that other countries do not have, but we recognize we must remain quality competitive as well.

I put the question to them: "In the light of reductions in recent years -- and I understand the impact of the changes in demographics in the United Kingdom and in Europe, that is, the changes in smoking habits; I understand the impact of Brazilian, Zimbabwean, Malawian or South Korean prices -- are you in the process of phasing us out of your market? Are you planning to change the blend of your cigarettes to remove Ontario tobacco from the United Kingdom?"

That is a very critical question, because we had indicated to the growers and manufacturers here that our government is prepared -- this will be a significant new departure -- to introduce programs to support the export of tobacco, at least over the course of the next few years as the situation stabilizes. I said to them, "However, if you are going to phase us out, that will dictate quite a different direction in policy than if it is simply a matter of your having to adjust to changes in your market, to which obviously we will have to adjust as well."

The answer from everyone we spoke to was that they see a continuing need for Canadian tobacco -- and for all intents and purposes that means Ontario tobacco, because we produce about 90 per cent of Canadian tobacco -- an intention to continue the mixtures and the blends that require Canadian tobacco, underlining at every meeting their concern about our prices.

I recall that we were in a meeting on Wednesday at the Tobacco Advisory Council, and on the basis of 1983 prices we were told we stood at something like two pounds, 90 pence per kilogram as compared to two pounds, 19 pence, I believe it was, for Zimbabwean tobacco. That is quite a spread.

There are certain things in our favour that still keep a market there for us, but the point was made to us, "Do not allow that spread to widen much further or we will have to re-evaluate where you stand in our marketplace." In fact, the sum total of all the advice we got was that they are going to continue to require our product.

Next Tuesday the growers and the Canadian manufacturers go back to the bargaining table. We should know then to what extent this trip this week has an impact, if any, on the amount of tobacco the domestic manufacturers will require.

I do not think anyone is under any illusion. Whatever the final number will be, there will be a cut from last year and some growers will have to convert some of their acreage; in some cases, depending on their size, perhaps all. As I said earlier in question period, we will continue to work with individual producers to advise them, on the basis of the type of soil, the acreage and the relative merits of various commodities, what they should convert to.

I was intrigued as the member for Welland-Thorold read off his list of alternative crops as he sees them. They are all crops in which our government has invested a great deal of money and staff time and has worked with individual growers. We worked in peanuts; and the member for Haldimand-Norfolk will be aware of that, because we have been on the same platform on several occasions in Simcoe talking about peanuts. We worked on strawberries, we worked on the development of a mechanical harvester for strawberries; we worked on corn -- all of these things that are alternatives.

We will continue to do everything we can to stabilize the demand for Ontario tobacco in the export market, at the same time working with and for individual producers and the overall agricultural community where shifts will be required on individual farms.

11:50 a.m.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, we designate the process that brought this debate forward an emergency, and really it is an emergency. Last year the tobacco crop was reduced by five per cent but, as the minister has pointed out, in a meeting just over a week ago between the growers and the processors, the processors indicated to the growers that their requirements for the coming year would be reduced by in excess of 33 per cent. We hope that is an exaggeration, but if the crop reduction is of that amount, it is estimated by at least one authority reported in the Toronto Star yesterday, April 12, as follows:

"A cut of that size could drive 800 tobacco growers out of production and cause the loss of 15,000 seasonal jobs in southwestern Ontario. The production cuts would mean the loss of 8,000 jobs harvesting the crop, 4,000 jobs planting and 3,000 to 4,000 jobs preparing the crop for market. More jobs would be lost because the small crop would force the board to close one, and possibly two, of its auction barns located in Delhi, Aylmer and Tillsonburg."

Obviously, some of those jobs are overlapping, but the economic impact is tremendous. We must not brush this aside as some small change in the agricultural economy of this province.

We can argue, I suppose for a long time, on the morality of people smoking cigarettes, but in this province it is not illegal to smoke and many thousands, in fact millions, of people smoke, have smoked and will continue to smoke.

The use of cigarettes dropped about five per cent last year. While we can use our own judgement as to whether that was a health concern, and there is no doubt it partly was, whether it was in response to the strong advertising programs of the governments of Ontario and Canada persuading people to stop smoking, and they are powerful programs indeed, or whether people feel the cost of cigarettes has got to the point where they cannot afford to smoke any more, is a judgement that is a personal matter.

I want to say again what I said in question period. We cannot slough off the impact of the huge increases in tobacco taxes that have taken place by the government of Canada and, much more severely, by the government of Ontario over the past four years.

One need only look up the debate on last year's budget, May 24, 1983, where the Liberals and the New Democratic Party opposed the increase in the tobacco tax, put forward the specific numbers at that time and warned about the effects it might have, and now we find it did have, on the consumption of cigarettes.

We can argue for a long time that a 45 per cent tax at the provincial level, with a new sales tax slapped on top of it at seven per cent, was unconscionable and bad judgement on the part of the Treasurer of the day.

In his comments, the Minister of Agriculture and Food said he did not want to talk about that because it was the responsibility of his colleagues the Treasurer and the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Gregory). That is unacceptable. If their policy is going to put in jeopardy the second-largest, most productive, economic agriculture --

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I did speak about it.

Mr. Nixon: I know the minister did. He said he should not, though. He said he did not want to and he implied he had little or no influence on the policy, which I hope is a mistake. I know he does not have much influence over there, but if he allows them to go through the next budget without an important adjustment downward in the tobacco tax, then he is not worth his salary. He can forget that, and he can forget other ambitions. I do not particularly want to get into that, but for any member of this House to dismiss the tremendously negative effect of the high, large, accelerating increases in tobacco taxes is unfair.

If this is a matter of government policy to stop people from smoking, it should say so and allow us to debate that matter. That has never been said. That has never been indicated as a matter of government policy and I do not believe it ever will be.

The citizens of this province are well informed of the bad effects of smoking. They have made their choices from time to time and continue to do so. The decrease was five per cent, directly related to these factors we have been discussing.

The revenue from tobacco in Canada is not $1 billion; it is well in excess of $2 billion. In Ontario, we expect to collect $533 million this year. I ask the members to compare that with the $295 million which is the total budget of the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

As a matter of fact, the Minister of Revenue takes in about $5,000 per acre of tobacco grown and the farmers gross only something just over half that. The farmers are certainly looking at the government and seeing that it has intruded into the economy of the tobacco market in a way that has been more than destructive. It is in the process of annihilating this industry.

There is another important point we should be discussing. Every member, in particular the member for Welland-Thorold, who has just left on another errand, has indicated we should be looking at alternative crops. Of course, the tobacco farmers are not going to let the land sit idle, but the total number of acres is comparatively very small. I will tell members once more that there is no possible crop, except marijuana, that will come within even 10 to 15 per cent of the net return on tobacco.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Marijuana?

Mr. Nixon: I am not in favour of growing marijuana.

Mr. Breaugh: Is this new Liberal Party policy?

Mr. Nixon: Just listen to this. To talk about growing melons or peanuts or tomatoes or petunias is lovely, but it will in no way replace the growing of tobacco.

My colleague said in his very fine remarks a few minutes ago he recalled the situation in that part of Ontario before the tobacco crop came in there. I can recall going down there 50 years ago in the 1930s with my dad, who was the member then, when it must have been one of the poorest spots in Canada.

The soil is fox sand. It was blowing across the old gravel roads. The township did not have the money to keep it up. My dad said 90 per cent of the people in that township at that time were on relief. People were moving out of there as fast as they could because it was just the end as far as farming was concerned.

Initiative brought in this new crop from the United States. Growers and technical people were brought from the United States, and even though it was a Liberal government at the time, I believe it was the farmers themselves and the entrepreneurs who had the initiative to do this.

If members were to drive down there -- and I invite them all to follow the map the member for Haldimand-Norfolk has put on their desks -- if they go down there in two or three weeks' time, it is an absolute paradise. The farms could not be in better repair. The buildings and the homes are beautiful. The crops are absolutely weedless. The rows are perfect. The windbreaks are growing and trimmed. It is absolutely the greatest farming area in Canada. I say that, which is something no politician should ever say. It is even more beautiful than the farming areas in Brant and Oxford. It is an absolute paradise.

The roads are paved. The schools are full of young people. The communities are active, in many instances in community centres they have built themselves. The people go to church. They are productive, and believe me, they are hardworking. The process of growing tobacco has changed in the last few years, but those families, Anglo-Saxon, but mostly many other ethnic peoples who have come since the war, have worked in a way that most of us cannot even imagine to produce those fine farms and those productive capabilities that have in the past really made many of those farmers rich. They have been well-to-do, the best farmers as far as their efficiency and their incomes are concerned, not only in Canada but perhaps even in North America.

Obviously, if tobacco goes out of production they will have to replace it with something, but do not get the idea that another crop can replace tobacco. It cannot.

The research going on in peanuts and other crops is very welcome. Certainly, we are going to use this. The one thing we can do here is to send a message to the Treasurer, who is absent, that his budget must reflect this emergency situation in a reduction of the tobacco tax. We made a serious mistake in this House a year ago and the year before that in allowing these taxes to be increased at unconscionable rates.

As a matter of fact, in the last four years the tobacco tax has gone up 45 per cent federally and 163 per cent provincially. We must remedy that at the first opportunity.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this debate with --

Mr. McClellan: Fear and trembling.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: -- a bit of fear and trembling, yes. I am a recently stopped smoker and the propensity for self-righteousness has already been noticed by many other people.

Mr. Shymko: How about drinking?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Good for you. Nixon does not drink or smoke either.

12 noon

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I will try to couch my remarks more in terms of the conundrum we should all have as legislators on this question about tobacco growing and about the health effects that are on the other side of things. I accept full well the fact that this is an emergency and, for the people who are growing tobacco and for the other people in the tobacco industry, a major financial problem is facing them that could mean devastation for many people. I concur that there is need for action to assist those people. It needs to be immediate and it needs to be addressed by the Treasurer as quickly as we possibly can.

But we have to juxtapose our discussion of how we do that, it seems to me, with the other side of the reality. It is somewhat ironic, and perhaps the Minister of Agriculture and Food will agree, that here we have a Minister of Agriculture and Food who was also Minister of Health. As a former Minister of Health, he knows the other side of the story.

The member for Brant-Oxford --

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Whatever.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: -- Norfolk -- I am sorry, I did not do that on purpose -- quoted a line from a story in the Toronto Star. But I was also struck by another one in which somebody was participating in the daffodil campaign around cancer research. He pointed out the figure of 500 people every week who die from smoking-related diseases. That is an incredibly devastating figure on the other side of things.

My colleague the member for Welland-Thorold raised the matter of the report on the effects of smoking that was produced by the Ontario Council of Health. I think it is important for us to remember what it embodied and what it symbolized. It is, in fact, a statement of government policy federally and provincially to make a major attack on smoking to try to deter the amount of smoking that people such as myself and others were doing and to point out the dangers to our health and the costs to the health system and to the people of Ontario that were involved in it.

One of the major recommendations in it is that the cost of cigarettes be doubled as one of the deterrents. That is policy, part of a whole program of promotion that has been going on, a program of raising the taxes to put some money back in that would help on the health care side of the system and trying to balance things.

If what has happened as a result of this is that there has been a reduction in the consumption of tobacco in this country, we should all be very happy, it seems to me. If that has been done on the backs of people who are involved in what has been accepted as a legitimate industry in this society for many years, then that is unfair and it should not be allowed to take place.

I cannot join with the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk in his attack on the taxing side of things. I did not like ad valorem as a method, but I cannot help feeling that if our goal is to reduce consumption, then we have to take that approach.

What we do have to talk about is how we are going to protect the farmers who are involved. I think that is where my colleague the member for Welland-Thorold spoke about a number of the options the government should be following.

Mr. Nixon: The government weeps all the way to the bank. Half a billion a year.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I accept the point of the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, who is now interjecting, that the profits from growing peanuts, although that will be a more profitable crop than corn these days, are not the same as those that can be raised from growing tobacco.

But what is the downside of what we are trying to do for the protection of health in our society? What are the costs of that? Surely we cannot say to people that we can guarantee they will have a nirvana, as the member was describing the tour of that region, but rather that they shall have a good basic income, they should be able to earn an income that other farmers should be able to earn and they should get their due reward from that, but from crops that, I hope, will be more socially useful, if I can put it that way.

Mr. Nixon: Do not damn them to the returns of the average farmer or they will all be on relief. That is where they started.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Again, I would agree with the interjection that we should not damn them to their problems, that there are many farmers who are facing bankruptcy. The need for farm stabilization programs is one that I think all members on this side of the House, at any rate, agree on very fundamentally.

But I do have a problem, and I would raise this, with the dilemma we face in this matter, with the former Minister of Health saying we are going to protect our export markets. Let us look a little bit at our notion of social responsibility in that area as well. Who is becoming the major consumer of tobacco products as the western world is starting to diminish its consumption? It is the developing countries. We are doing incredible promotional work -- not we ourselves but the industry in general -- to promote the use of tobacco worldwide as a product in developing countries where it has never been the practice in the past.

Anybody who is involved in the Nestle's arguments about what we were doing in that area feels we are doing something even more reprehensible in terms of our overmarketing of that product in those areas. Why should we say our health is worth protecting and yet say we should be doing and participating in a major promotion of those kinds of products in the rest of the world?

I really do not think there is an easy means of having it both ways in this issue. If the Liberal Party and all parties in this House agree that smoking is a hazard to our health, and I do not know anybody who is going to refute the kind of evidence that is out there now in the community, surely we should be cutting down on the amount of tobacco we are producing.

Do we want to export our cancer? I do not think we do. I do not think that is the role we want. At the same time, we cannot have our farmers unprotected. If we take off the taxes and use that as a means of encouraging people to smoke again and to smoke more, it will help the tobacco industry but it will do nothing on the other end.

What we have to do is find ways of making sure that farmers, in the production of food crops that are important to the people of this country, make enough money so they can live a good and decent life in Ontario. Nobody should be suffering as this transition in consumption here in this country, which we should all be pleased about takes place.

I would encourage all members of the House to understand that we cannot have this both ways. These people must be protected.

Mr. G. I. Miller: How do we compete with the Americans? Their tax is eight cents on a pack. You are just encouraging us to go across the border and get them --

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The member is suggesting that what we should be doing is to take examples from there?

Mr. G. I. Miller: -- and discouraging tourists coming here.

Mr. R. F. Miller: My God, if we come down to the point where we are basing our tourist industry on the capacity for people to come here to buy cheap cigarettes, I would suggest we are in a very dangerous kind of position altogether.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Cheap cigarettes and liquor. Why should you tell me if I can smoke or not?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I should not be involved in a debate. You should be calling me out of order. Please do.

The Acting Speaker: Do not be distracted.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I will merely sum up by saying I believe there is a crisis, which means we have to give income protection and new crop promotion assistance to those farmers who are being affected by this turndown. At the same time, we should welcome the fact that people are not smoking as much and that the cost to and burden on the health of our society and the damage it does to individual families are lessening in our society. We should be very proud of that.

Mr. Gillies: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to join in this debate. I am also very pleased the member for Haldimand-Norfolk and the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk brought it forward.

I do not think there can be any question that the plight of our tobacco farmers in the tobacco belt south of my riding is in an emergency situation. I have had an increasing volume of tobacco farmers and their families contacting me in the last number of months, as I am sure the other members in the area have, with a great deal of concern.

I certainly recognize and agree with some of the comments made by my friend the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston), but this is a very delicate area. My primary concern at this point is for the welfare of many thousands of families who are engaged in this industry in our province. To a degree, I would make a distinction between the health concerns we have, which are very legitimate, and the immediate welfare of the tobacco farming families.

I would suggest it would be quite different for government, either at the federal or provincial level, to take a strong policy stand on the question of smoking and the health effects of smoking. It is quite another thing to let a very vital agricultural industry in our province suffer or be snuck out the back door because of neglect or taxation policy.

The numbers are very impressive. I have a file here of correspondence from farmers and people in the industry. We are talking about an agricultural industry that every year produces more than $1 billion in wages and salaries either directly or indirectly, $700 million in business income, $2.4 billion in government revenue -- federal and provincial -- and many thousands of person-years of employment.

12:10 p.m.

It is an interesting turn of events. When times are good, the tobacco industry is very lucrative. Traditionally, some of the most prosperous farmers in Brant county, and I think in the neighbouring county, have been tobacco farmers. When they started to write to me, and I started to hear about the plight of these farmers in the last couple of months, I was surprised because we have come to think of those people as very industrious, prosperous and stable farmers. That situation has darkened to a tremendous degree in the last number of months.

I might quote briefly from one of the letters I received from a farmer after I replied to his letter indicating I would bring this matter to the attention of the Treasurer, that I would be speaking to the Treasurer about my concern that we not further overburden the tobacco industry with taxation in our next budget:

"Dear Sir:

"I have read your letter of January 23, 1984, and in your letter you state that our provincial government has a strong record for assisting Ontario tobacco farmers, including crop insurance, seasonal housing assistance for farm workers, the tax exemptions on goods purchased by farmers and the farm tax reduction program.

"All of these programs surely help us and we are grateful to our government. However, if the tobacco industry is increasingly taxed to death and, consequently, we as a family farm are forced into bankruptcy, the aforementioned good programs will be of no use to us."

We have reached a crisis point. I do not think the reduction in tobacco sales can be traced solely to taxation policies, although I think it is a large factor. We see a decrease in the sales of cigarettes. Some three billion fewer cigarettes were sold in 1983 compared to the previous year, a decline of about five per cent.

Another problem is the importation of tobacco. On Wednesday night of this week I met with the Brant County Federation of Agriculture. I know my friend the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk talks with them on a regular basis. They told me they find it very difficult to understand how they can compete with tobacco being imported from Third World countries and South America where farm workers are paid an average of $38 per month. I believe that is the figure I heard. We live in a civilized country and we do not pay our farm employees $38 a month; we try to pay them a living wage. Our farmers are finding it very difficult to compete.

I am pleased that my colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Food went to Britain to try to do some spade work with the large companies there that provide part of the market for the crops of our farmers. I hope and pray his mission meets with some success because, if we face a decline of $114 million in this year's crop, as was stated in the Toronto Star the other day, we can say the effect will be catastrophic.

We are talking about an industry that employs an estimated 15,000 seasonal workers in Ontario and includes more than 800 individual farmers. As a student, I worked in tobacco several summers. It is common for the young people in my riding who may not be able to find employment in the industries in Brantford to go to farms in Haldimand-Norfolk and Brant county to work on the tobacco crop. Those opportunities are important.

I might add we have to keep in mind that every dollar earned by those students is helping to put them through school and is saving us money on government grants and loans to those same students. It is important to our local economy in Brant county, and even to the people of Brantford who are not directly involved in the industry, because we have a policy in our Brant county social services that able and willing people who are drawing social assistance will be asked to go out and work in the agricultural industry during the summer months. A large number report for work at the farms in our area, particularly the tobacco farms.

Tobacco farming is very labour intensive. It takes a lot of people to work at a certain point of the season in planting, then in getting all the irrigation equipment in place and, finally, for the picking of the leaves and getting them into the areas for curing and so on. It is a labour-intensive industry, a very important industry. A further decline in it would have a very negative effect on the economy of my riding of Brantford, both on those involved directly in the industry and those who are not.

Tobacco farmers have approached me, asking a number of questions, such as whether they should be circulating a petition among their communities about the level of taxation. I said to them they certainly should. The voices of these people have to be heard by this Legislature and by the Treasurer as he considers his next budget.

They also asked whether they could expect any relief from the level of taxation, which they feel is one of the overriding negative effects on their industry. I have made the case to the Treasurer that I think we have reached a point of diminishing returns. I really do not see the benefit in tobacco taxes being further increased this year because, if sales continue to decline, one does not have to be a very bright mathematician to figure out the revenues will decline. When that point of diminishing returns is reached, then the increased taxation serves no purpose for the taxpaying public and it certainly serves no purpose for the industry.

As a government we have to respond to the very legitimate concerns of this very important agricultural issue. I urge my colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Food, to keep up his efforts on their behalf, to listen to the tobacco farmers and to go where he is required to assist them. I will also continue to urge my colleague the Treasurer to take this very serious issue into consideration as he prepares his next budget.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I guess I am probably the only ex-tobacco grower here. In my younger days I grew a fairly large acreage of tobacco, both burley tobacco and black-fired tobacco. I think I know a bit about the industry.

In my part of the country, in Kent-Elgin, it is quite an important industry. In the two townships of Aldborough and Dunwich, in particular in Aldborough, it amounts to about $55 million at the farm gate. That is for the flue-cured tobacco or Virginia-type tobacco, the same type that is grown in Brant-Oxford-Norfolk and the Haldimand-Norfolk areas.

In Kent county we grow a small acreage of burley tobacco. The farm gate value there is just a little under $3 million. There is also a small acreage of black-fired tobacco. This is the type of tobacco that is used in chewing tobacco and is used by people in industries where cigarettes are a fire hazard. In some of the mines and in industrial situations where people are going to use tobacco regardless of whatever prohibitions there might be on it, black-fired tobacco is used as a chewing tobacco. I guess baseball players are one of the big users of that type of tobacco.

12:20 p.m.

Burley and the black tobacco are grown on rather small acreages, that is by people who have three or four acres, with one or two exceptions. There are some people who have 30 or 40 acres, but I can think of only one operator. In most cases it is not the larger part of their operation. They do have other crops they can fall back on. Nevertheless, on some of the smaller farms, people who are earning a good living on a 50- to 75-acre farm are able to make use of family labour. A good deal of this labour is in the wintertime when they are grading the tobacco. Those families can maintain a family farm on a reasonably small acreage because they have a tobacco allotment. With the loss of these markets, it would appear these people are threatened not only with the loss of their tobacco acreage but also with the loss of the economic viability of their farms.

Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment you on allowing this debate. It is a very difficult debate for all members because there are a great many moral, ethical and emotional factors involved. I compliment you on having allowed this to go forward and enabled us to put the problem squarely before the people of Ontario and, perhaps more important, to speak honestly to the tobacco growers so they have some idea of where they are going.

A good deal of mention has been made of alternative crops that can be grown on that land. I am familiar with a good many of those alternative crops, because most of them are in the horticultural realm. People speak rather easily about growing tomatoes on that land. I am sure the Minister of Agriculture and Food knows that over the last 30 years the processing tomato industry has grown considerably. It grew in Prince Edward county to quite an extent at one time around Quinte. It has grown in all the counties along Lake Erie to Kent and Essex. Today about 80 to 90 per cent of it is in Kent and Essex because the industry has gone towards mechanization with very large acreages. People have 80 or 90 or even as many as 200 acres on which they employ a harvesting machine that costs about $150,000 today.

The types of soil tomatoes are now grown on are heavy, clay soils; they are not the light, sandy soils. They are grown to some extent on sandy loam soil in Kent and Essex, but these are much heavier soils than one would grow tobacco on. I do not see that there is much of an opportunity there for tomatoes. Again, one has to look at the weather in that area; they do not have the heat units by a good shortfall.

Asparagus is one of the crops that are mentioned. The government of Ontario has put a good deal of money into the planting of asparagus roots and promoting the use of asparagus. We are going to know the results this year because many of these plantations of asparagus are coming into their first harvest. It has to be proved yet whether we have the varieties that will withstand our climate and whether we have the market to carry all that asparagus.

One of the biggest growers in Ontario is in my county. He grows 200 acres of asparagus, and he will admit that in recent years it has been quite unsuccessful. Asparagus is a rather strange animal. It will poke up an asparagus tip early in April or May. If that tip gets frozen, it sends a message to the root to go into hibernation for the rest of the year. One would think that other spears would come up and one would have a crop minus only that first spear; but if that first spear is frozen, that is largely the end of the crop.

This grower is having yields of about 1,000 pounds per acre on one of the most productive farms in Ontario because it is also a farm that is very large in beef production. They have great soils and manures for growing asparagus, but it has not been a great success, and they will admit that.

Peanuts are a marginal crop. We hope we have all the success in the world, but one has to realize that the natural home of that crop is down in Georgia. As with so many of the crops we are growing in Ontario in the heat-loving area, we are really marginal. I hope we can find varieties, but simply to say we can turn tomorrow to peanuts is not recognizing the facts.

We talk about melons. We do not grow enough melons in Ontario to supply the market. It takes about 80 to 90 days from planting time to grow a good-quality melon. Planting time is no sooner than June 1, so that puts us into late September, particularly in the Norfolk area. In late September you do not have the warm days and nights; by that time you are getting a sour melon, and there is nothing worse in this world than a poor melon.

In Essex and Kent, melons are planted a bit earlier; there are more heat units, and they get the crop off in August. But even in those areas the tail end of the crop is cut off by imports from California, because as soon as you get the cool nights, the quality of that melon is gone and the trade turns to California items.

I think we need to level with our producers and tell them where they are. I sympathize with the Minister of Agriculture and Food, because I do not think it is his fault except, as the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk has said, he has not been able to get his way in the cabinet.

The minister has been telling us about the attitude of these overseas buyers, and I well believe he is telling it as he sees it. I think anyone in business, especially in food products and agricultural products, knows a buyer is not going to discourage anyone from producing. They want as much competition as they can possibly get out in the production areas so they can buy it as cheaply as possible. They are not going to tell you: "We are withdrawing from this market. Go ahead and keep on growing it." What they are telling us is that we must be competitive.

We are facing here a situation that we face in manufacturing or in any labour-intensive endeavour, which is that the Third World countries are taking a good look at labour-intensive products and they are going to do a better and better job, as Japan has shown us in the last 20 years or so.

Mr. Wildman: I would not call Japan a Third World country.

Mr. McGuigan: It was Third World.

The Deputy Speaker: I point out to the member that his time has expired. Perhaps he can just wrap up quickly.

Mr. McGuigan: I think we should level with the growers and tell them where we are going. Clearly the message is being sent out with our taxation policies that the Ontario government is not in favour of their crop. We either have to tell them that or pull that tax back and deal honestly and fairly with them.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I enter this debate as one who, like most other members, is of two minds on this very difficult issue. Frankly, I had hoped that when we approached this topic in the House we would do it in a very serious way, perhaps as the honourable member who has just finished speaking has done, and not by throwing insults back and forth or by trying to make political points on a very serious issue that affects a lot of people.

Unfortunately, during question period we had epithets thrown back and forth. We had the Minister of Agriculture and Food indicate that this party was somehow in favour of state-owned, state-directed and state-controlled agriculture, which is unbelievably ridiculous. He knows that since the 1930s and 1940s this party and its predecessor have favoured marketing boards and an approach to agriculture and marketing based on producer choice and commodity decisions made by the commodity producers. While we would provide enabling legislation to allow producers in whatever agricultural commodity to decide to have supply management, we would not force anyone into it.

To have a minister who is doing what he apparently is now doing in the beef marketing industry accuse this party of being interested in state control and direction in agriculture is a bit much.

12:30 p.m.

Also we had the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk somehow respond to the suggestion made by the member for Welland-Thorold that we should be looking at alternative crops as if this was somehow an attack on the tobacco industry and this party wanted to destroy the whole tobacco crop. I really find that a little much to take as well.

All of us in this House must agree with the comments of the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk with regard to the reason for the increased taxation in this area. While politicians of all stripes make very serious arguments with regard to the health dangers of cigarette smoking and use that as a reason for using taxation as a disincentive to people who might consider continuing to smoke or young people beginning to smoke, governments not just at this level but at all levels have seen tobacco taxes, just as they have seen liquor taxes, as a revenue producer, as a way of gaining more and more revenue in a field. They can be used to show that the governments are attempting to encourage good health in our economy and our society, but they are mainly interested in revenue.

For that reason, at the time the ad valorem approach was proposed by the government, this party opposed that because it was a blatant attempt to increase revenue without having to come before the House and indicate there would be an increase in taxation. That is an unfair and almost underhanded approach to increasing government revenue. For that reason, we opposed that.

Mr. Ruston: Very undemocratic.

Mr. Wildman: Yes. Facing the tobacco producers in Ontario is the question of their future. We appear to have serious changes in the market. From the material provided by the member for Haldimand-Norfolk, I see changes in what the processors are requesting from the producers. It says, "The processors have indicated they will want only 63.5 million to 65.7 million kilograms or 140 million to 145 million pounds this year, which is the smallest crop in 20 years." That is a drop of about one third from last year, and last year's was a very small crop. We have seen approximately 800 farmers leave the business and 8,000 farm workers lose their jobs.

It goes on to point out that it costs a good deal more to grow a small crop than it does a larger crop. Therefore, farmers who are still in the business but see their quotas cut will have additional costs and will need assistance from government to be able to survive in this business.

Why do we have this tremendous drop in the market? There have been a lot of suggestions raised. Frankly, I think one of the reasons is simply the recession. We have seen people in their own household budgets attempt to cut costs, and one of the ways of cutting costs is to cut out things that perhaps are not essential to their wellbeing. In some cases it might be perceived, as most of us would concede, to be detrimental to their wellbeing.

As well, we have seen what appears to be a long-term change in trend and lifestyle. A large number of people who are interested in good health and in improving their health are changing their diet, concentrating on getting regular exercise by jogging and other means, perhaps cutting their alcohol consumption and changing from hard liquor to wine, and to light beer in the brewery industry and so on. Part of that is a change away from alcohol as well.

People in our society are interested in improving their health, and for that reason they are moving away from tobacco. We see fewer people smoking. More people who have been smoking are quitting. Interestingly enough, although I do not have the figures before me, it appears that while more men in our society are discontinuing the smoking habit, there are some indications that more women are smoking. There are also some indications that teen-age girls are beginning to smoke in greater numbers and at earlier ages.

Having said that, overall there appears to be a trend away from products that are perceived by the general public as detrimental to health. One of those products is tobacco. All of us must recognize that. Certainly the cost of the product has a bearing, but it is not the only reason people are not smoking as much, especially, it appears, among the male population.

The cigarette manufacturers seem to be recognizing this trend and are doing all they can to diversify their investments. They are moving into many other fields, such as the beverage industry. They are moving into fields that are completely unrelated to what might be considered to be lifestyle products, such as manufacturing and so on, because they believe that to protect their investments and ensure their profit picture for their investors, they must diversify. For that reason, I believe the tobacco farmers, those who are producing the raw product, must also recognize there is a need for diversification.

I have heard the arguments raised by other members about the problems with regard to the types of soils and the crops that might be viable in those areas. I am not interested in seeing farmers go back to the situation they experienced in the 1930s, but we as a government, and they as producers, must recognize the need to diversify to protect their future.

For that reason, we must do all we can as legislators, and the government must do all it can as a government, to encourage research into and the development of new and better types of crops that can be grown by these farmers so they will have a future and so the rural communities in which they live will remain viable and people will have a profitable future.

I hope all of us will approach this debate with the seriousness it deserves and not just attempt to make political points against one another.

Mr. Treleaven: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a remark to the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) and the member for Scarborough West. The member for Algoma mentioned the health kick, that people are conscious of their health. The member for Scarborough West mentioned the question of doubling the tobacco tax to discourage people from smoking.

Surely we have some choice left in this province. Surely obesity is also a rather large health problem. Surely the member for Scarborough West is not suggesting the government get on to the tables of the province and start taxing food or going into rationing with regard to the diets of the people of Ontario. Surely there is choice as to what a person eats, and surely there is choice as to whether a person smokes.

This question is serious when one talks about one third of the farmers, about 800 farmers, going out of business. My friend the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) referred to jobs. When we talk about jobs in tobacco farming, we are talking about a lot of university and college students who rely on the wages they earn in tobacco farming to go back to school and without which they will not go back to school. A lot of the high school kids rely on the wages to put food on the family table. Working in tobacco farming is one of the few ways a lot of families in Oxford, Norfolk and Elgin can actually get off unemployment and welfare.

12:40 p.m.

We are also not talking about the support industries, all those industries that provide chemicals, build kilns, provide fertilizer -- all those other support industries. They are going to be laying off heavily. In the Tillsonburg paper they are already talking about layoffs with this coming up in anticipation of this severe cut.

My friend the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk also mentioned closing at least one tobacco barn. When you talk about a tobacco barn or a tobacco auction, you are not talking about a little thing; you are talking about a huge building with an awful lot of employees. For those who do not live in or near a tobacco community, maybe I could describe how the communities from the south of Oxford down to the lake and east and west 50 miles thereof rely on tobacco.

If you closed one third of the mines in Sudbury permanently, that is the same devastating effect this cut is going to have on the tobacco area. Whole communities live and die with the tobacco industry. It pervades all parts of the community and all parts of their social and financial life. For example, the high schools in the south part of Oxford and down in Norfolk, Essex and so on do not start back at the same time in the fall as the high schools do in the northern part of the county and in other counties; they start back late. The whole community adapts to the tobacco industry, right down to education.

Might I just talk for a moment about the average tobacco farmer. Back when I was practising and doing the odd tobacco farm -- and I admit now I am a bit of a dinosaur in that -- the average tobacco farmer probably had 100 acres and he probably had 40 acres of rights, so he probably grew 40 acres of tobacco. If you want to talk about ball-park figures, that is 100,000 pounds of tobacco a year.

The price of tobacco has fallen from $2.50 to $2.20 a pound to buy. If you are talking about a man trying to keep a viable, economic tobacco farm going with the cuts that have been coming all these years, down to 57 per cent last year -- I am not talking about the cut coming this year -- if he had tried to buy enough rights or enough quota to keep that 100,000-pounds-a-year tobacco crop and to keep his operation viable, he would have around $700,000 tied up in quota alone. That is only the right to sell his tobacco; that is not the farm, the equipment, the kilns, anything else: $700,000.

Right now the prices are falling. To go out and buy right now, it was $2.50 but today it is $2.20 and I understand they are making contracts now for $2.10 a pound. It is falling. If anybody now tries to buy enough quotas to offset this cut that is likely to come, from 56 or 57 per cent to 36 or 37 per cent, he is going to have to lay out $200,000 to $300,000 right now. I do not know how many of them are going to do that even if the bankers would allow them to.

What he is probably going to do is to chuck it and put his quota on the market to rent it out or try to sell it in a falling market; that means he is out of business and all those people are out of jobs. Or he can go out and rent rights, rent quota. Right now it is running at 65 cents a pound. If he goes out and tries to rent enough quota for this year alone to raise this crop to get up to the same 100,000 viable unit operation, he is going to have to lay out $20,000, $30,000, $40,000 or $50,000 for this year alone.

If he like many others has had any tough luck in the past -- and a lot have with the blue mould of three years ago and the freezing out two years ago; a lot of them had a fair amount of tobacco flooded last year -- he is probably in bad shape with his bankers; he probably has carryovers from year to year. It is very likely the banker is going to say: "No, we are not going to run with you for another $40,000 this year. You are cut off." Therefore, he is not going to go out buying that; he is simply not going to put in a crop. He cannot put in a crop of one third and expect to keep his operation going.

I would like just for a minute to compare our two ministers involved with the federal ministers. The Minister of Agriculture and Food has shown a lot of concern. Last month he was on a tour with me of the RJR-Macdonald tobacco plant. He was at the auction. We met with the tobacco board which was really concerned -- exercised might be the right word -- over what its members thought was going to be a cut from 205 million pounds to 190 million. Little did they think we were talking in terms of 140 million. They were very alarmed at that point. One can imagine the alarm in talking of 140 million pounds.

He met with them down there numerous times. He has been around there talking to them. The members have heard what he said about his efforts in England and elsewhere.

The Treasurer was meeting last week with people in the Haldimand-Norfolk area. This past Tuesday he was with the five wardens of the tobacco counties and region. The provincial ministers are out there hustling. They are out there trying to do something.

Let us compare the other two. There is the federal Minister of Revenue, who cancelled a meeting last Tuesday with the people on the tobacco board who tried to see him. The provincial Treasurer did not cancel out but the federal Minister of Revenue did. The Jolly Green Giant said: "Let them eat cake. I will do nothing for the tobacco farmers." That was reported in the London Free Press. He said: "I will do nothing for them. Let them grow peanuts. Let them grow tomatoes."

We have heard corn suggested today. Right now, peanut farming is in its infancy. Right now, harvesting equipment is such that farmers are not even sure of getting enough crop out of the ground, especially in a wet year, to break even.

Mr. Conway: What are we going to do about the provincial tax regime?

Mr. Treleaven: We are talking about what the federal regime is not doing at this point.

Mr. Conway: But we are provincial legislators.

Mr. Treleaven: Why do you people, as provincial Liberal legislators, not ask the federal Liberal legislators to emulate our two ministers who are trying to do something?

Mr. Laughren: You are the government. Just pass the buck.

Mr. Ruston: You never think of doing anything on your own.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Treleaven: Tomatoes; there is another one. It is great to think of putting tomatoes in, with the tomato paste coming in from Japan. Another thing about corn, if a farmer was really lucky and corn prices stayed up above $4 a bushel, the farmer might net $100 to $150 an acre. With corn, there is no way these tobacco farmers can meet or even come close to the debts they are carrying at the bank. What it means is that they are going out.

Mr. Conway: What about the provincial tax regime?

Mr. Treleaven: The member for Elgin (Mr. McNeil) and I have been badgering -- and that is the fair word -- the Treasurer not to raise taxes on tobacco products in this year's budget. I would ask the members across the House to also speak to their Liberal confreres in Ottawa to get them to cancel the 17 per cent tax they are talking about.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, until this contribution from the member for Oxford, the level of debate this morning has been of pretty high quality. In fact, I would say it was atypical of a Friday morning.

I would like to state for the record my personal concerns. I have a serious aversion to tobacco. I do not use it. I have even taken to rejecting the complementary cigars we get at the chiropractors' annual dinner. I was encouraged as a youngster not to smoke because I was advised it would stunt my growth. I took those admonitions very seriously.

I should say I had in 1959, unfortunately, a better reason to be concerned about smoking. That was the passing of my father, who died of lung cancer. He, in fact, had been a smoker. I accept the causal relationship without any equivocation.

12:50 p.m.

I would like to say for the record that as much as I have an aversion to smoking, I have an even more serious concern about Big Brother or big government dictating to people whether or not they can smoke. I accept the harsh facts of reality that people have smoked for many years, and despite whatever we may say, or how much money we spend on advertising, unfortunately, people will continue to smoke.

What has become apparent to me during the course of this morning's debate is that the level of taxation we have in this province has absolutely nothing to do with any concern the government may have about people's health through the use of tobacco. The 163 per cent increase the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk made reference to today that has taken place during the course of the last four years has more to do with a greedy assault on the pockets of the taxpayers and smokers of Ontario than any other factor.

I think the government probably has in its possession some realistic forecasts about the use of tobacco in the future, and it is the government's aim not to lose one nickel of potential revenue from taxation due to the reduction in the amount of cigarettes sold and the reduction in smoking. Its aim is to enhance that. That is why we have had the 163 per cent tax increase we have seen in the last four years, the imposition of an ad valorem tax, and in last year's budget a tax upon a tax.

That more recent tax upon a tax has demonstrated, as far as I am concerned, the shallowness and the hypocrisy of this government. We are told they obtain $533 million a year in tobacco taxation. That is over half a billion dollars. Of course, they are quite intent on maintaining that revenue.

The unfortunate thing is that at budget time the government never chooses to cut waste. It never chooses to involve itself in an introspective analysis of what can be done to make government more efficient, and what things could be cut around this place to reduce the ever-growing, insatiable appetite for revenue that seems to be demonstrated.

In the Toronto Sun this morning there is a forecast by the Treasurer. He has given the first indication that this upcoming spring budget will be a mean one and that it portends even higher taxes on the people. I suggest the cabinet and the government would be well advised to cut its advertising budget, which is now the highest in the country, spending some $70 million in this province of 8.5 million people to assist in convincing them of the merit of their programs.

They could cut the growth of the subsidiaries -- just the subsidiaries -- of the Urban Transportation Development Corp. and we would be a heck of a lot better off. We might be well advised to divest ourselves of Suncor, or even do something as small as eliminating cars for the deputy ministers. I have always had the view that deputy ministers are well paid for what they do and do not need cars provided at the expense of the taxpayers.

In the time that remains, I would like to encourage the Minister of Agriculture and Food to involve himself in some intelligent discussion with the Treasurer and the Minister of Revenue on the budget we anticipate in the near future.

We really should get the Treasurer to reevaluate his position, at least on the tax on the tax, and to remove the sales tax on the tax. The members opposite voted for that tax. The member for Oxford and the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies), who unfortunately is not in his seat, cannot dissociate themselves from the last budget. They voted for the budget. I stand to be corrected, but I believe both members voted for the tobacco tax issue.

It was not long ago that the Premier directed the very able member for Elgin to tour the Pacific Rim and visit Siam, Australia, Hong Kong, Hawaii, Fiji and all sorts of different places, ostensibly to promote Ontario tobacco. This, yet again, is an indication the government perhaps is committed to the sale of it. I see the member is not in his seat. I would have enjoyed hearing from him with regard to what kind of progress he obtained on his tour.

This recent growth of tax on tobacco has ironically contributed to a new development in purchasing preference by people. Statistics would indicate that many more people are buying paper and tobacco and rolling their own cigarettes. This, of course, does not give them the benefit of the recent advancements in terms of filtration to reduce and minimize the problem we have associated with the carcinogenic effects of the use of tobacco.

I would hope the urging of the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk and the continuing efforts that have been made by the member for Haldimand-Norfolk on this subject would not go unheeded.

While I personally do not use the product, as I mentioned before, I realize there are at least 800 or 1,000 families in those areas who live primarily on the sale of the product. I accept the fact that the product will be with us probably for as long as I live. Indeed, there are some 15,000 seasonal jobs that flow from the sale of tobacco products and the multiplier effect from that economy is even greater.

I would submit the continued growth in tax that we have seen makes a mockery out of our six and five program and potentially spells disaster for people who are involved in that industry. It is inequitable to bring in that level of taxation at a time when we are telling people we would like to control the growth of their wages to a level of six and five per cent.

I do not know how any Treasurer could justify a growth of 163 per cent in taxes and a tax upon a tax. The responsibility of government is a great one. It certainly is not an easy task by any means, but with that power comes responsibility. I believe, at least in the context of tobacco taxes in this province -- and perhaps I should even expand on provincial income tax on another occasion -- at the very minimum, the conduct of this government has been absolutely, totally reprehensible.

When this next budget is tabled, if the punitive tax on the tax -- just that tax alone -- is not deleted from the budget, I hope the member for Oxford, the member for Elgin and the member for Brantford will stand in their places and vote against that budget at the appropriate time. In the interim I would expect, given their disposition and sense of responsibility, they would speak out against the budget.

The House adjourned at 12:58 p.m.

April 13, 1984