Hansard Transcripts 1984-Jun-19 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Speaker: I ask all members to join with me in welcoming a visitor in the Speaker's gallery in the name of the Honourable James Russell, Speaker of the Legislature of Newfoundland and Labrador.

ORAL QUESTIONS

AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. I am glad to see the minister has arrived.

I assume that by today he has met with representatives of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, and I assume that if he has not been impressed up until this date, he is impressed now with the crisis in the rural communities in the agriculture sector in this province.

He has been presented with very specific requests today for emergency assistance. All my colleagues and, I am sure, the minister himself have travelled widely in this province and realize this crisis is not imagined; it is very real and it is very imminent.

All the statistics, farm bankruptcies and everything else, do not bode well in the short term for our agricultural community without assistance. My question to the minister very specifically is, will he respond positively to those four requests of the OFA?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I did meet with some representatives of the federation, as a matter of fact, along with my deputy minister, and we went over their briefs. Most of their points have really been raised before.

With respect to the suggested changes to the Ontario farm adjustment assistance program, I did undertake to take a close look at those because some time in the next couple of months we will be providing to the cabinet our advice on what should be done with OFAAP after its planned expiration on December 31, 1984.

With respect to proposals on a capital assistance plan, I pointed out a number of the things we are already doing, such as the soil conservation and environmental protection assistance plan, the greenhouse efficiency program, the beginning farmer assistance program and so on. I could not accept that recommendation per se, but I could point out a number of areas where we are tackling aspects that are of concern to the farmers.

In regard to the proposed provision of a very large subsidy, a handout, to the red meat sector, I had to restate my position as it has been all along. I recognize as well as anybody that there is a crisis in that sector of agriculture, but the proposed solution is not going to resolve their problems.

We have been tackling them in a variety of ways, whether it be through the red meat plan, which is a $62.5-million commitment of our government; the changes to the marketing system, which are under review right now; the development of the tripartite stabilization program; or the beginning farmer assistance program, and many of the 807 who have been approved to date under that program are livestock producers. I think I have been able to point out a number of areas where we are already doing things they would like us to do.

Finally, on the question of a large payout -- or subsidy, whatever one wants to call it -- to the red meat sector, I have to point out again that the executive of the Ontario Cattlemen's Association has recently come out against such a payment, the executive of the Ontario Pork Producers' Marketing Board has come out against such a proposal and the Ontario Sheep Association has come out against such a proposal, recognizing that, at this very delicate point in the development of the tripartite stabilization program, such a move on our part would destroy it completely.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, the minister does one tremendous job of pitting one farm organization against another and one farmer against another, and that has to stop.

Setting aside all the sweet rhetoric, does the representation from a large number of farmers who could ill afford to leave their farms at this time of year not send a message to him that all is not well on the farm front? Does it occur to him that they do not want to hear about soil erosion programs and what not? Sure, inasmuch as it is important, the fact is that the farmers have to remain on the land to do something about soil erosion; that is the crisis today. Is he prepared to listen to their requests?

Will the minister put $67.4 million in emergency assistance into the red meat producers? Will he extend OFAAP over another three-year period and raise the equity to 70 per cent instead of 60 per cent? Is he prepared to listen to the request for an operating loan with an interest cap at prime plus a half? Is he prepared to meet their request for a capital loan program at eight per cent repayable over 10 years? All these are programs that are endeavouring to keep our farmers in business at this time when things are pretty rough out there on the farm front.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, with respect, I think I have already answered the honourable member's question in my answer to his leader, and there is no point in taking the time of the House to repeat my answer. Of course I am impressed with the number of people who have come here today; I am always impressed with the federation representatives and with any representatives of the farm group.

I can assure the member that I am in no way trying to pit any one organization against another, but the fact is that on some issues there is a significant difference of opinion. I could point out, for instance, that the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario has recently decided not to support tripartite stabilization of any kind.

We have the cattlemen's association and the other red meat producer organizations favouring one type of tripartite stabilization without an ad hoc payment, we have the Ontario Federation of Agriculture wanting 100 per cent cost of production recovery with an ad hoc payment and we have the Christian farmers federation on the other side asking not to have any stabilization program at all.

The fact is that there is a great diversity of opinion. As minister, it is my responsibility to try to establish and pursue a policy course that is in the best interests of most of the farmers of this province, and that is exactly what I have been doing for two and a half years.

2:10 p.m.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, the minister forgot the fourth hand: "And then we have Dennis Timbrell, who is doing nothing except playing one group off against another and not responding to the very real needs of agriculture." That is the reality.

In addition to the question about the need for an immediate program for red meat producers, why does the government continue to resist the obvious need for a long-term credit plan in this province? Alberta and Quebec have such plans. The minister will know that in 1981-82 Alberta gave $388.5 million in long-term payments and Quebec gave $347.3 million. In Ontario an increasing number of farmers are reliant solely on the chartered banks, who have not exactly been acting as the farmers' friends over the last number of years. Having got them into debt, now they are sticking it to the farmers of this province.

Will the minister please stand up to the banks and show some courage on his own part and establish a province-wide plan that will provide long-term credit at affordable rates, rather than forcing farmers to go to private markets where they have to pay 12, 14, 16 and 18 percent rates, which they cannot afford? Will he please establish permanent, long-term credit for farmers to get over this tremendous debt squeeze which is affecting them so badly?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member alludes to programs that exist in the other provinces. No province has a complete agricultural bank covering everything from day-to-day credit and short-term credit to mortgages. No province is in a position to do that because no province has the financial resources. A number of years ago -- I guess it was in 1967 or 1968 -- the federal government took the position that it wanted to have the prime government role in the long-term farm credit field and approached the provinces to get out of that field.

Mr. Swart: We have heard that broken record a dozen times.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I know the Speaker will recall, since he is interested even if the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) is not, that we had a junior farmer loan program up until that time and we cut it off when the federal government took that position.

A dozen or so years ago, the Farm Credit Corp. carried more than 70 per cent of the long-term credit in the agricultural sector. Today it is down in the low 20s. That is not intended to be a criticism of FCC. It is partly that the allocations to FCC have not kept pace with the demand for agricultural credit and partly a related recognition that the government cannot do it all.

We have brought in a number of programs, not the least of them being the beginning farmer assistance program, which as of last Friday has had more than 800 applicants approved to receive the five per cent rebate. We have advanced proposals for agribonds, again a long-term measure, a joint federal-provincial initiative and something that I hope the member supports.

I hope he recognizes that no provincial government is in a position to be all things to all people. We have to target our programs and it is best if we can do it on a joint federal-provincial basis.

Mr. Riddell: Does the minister recall the response he gave me when I raised the question? He said: "I have my constituents on this side and I have half my constituents over here asking for the opposite. I am on the side of my constituents." Did he have himself in mind when he gave me that response?

When is he going to act the farmers advocate and walk into the cabinet room the same way Bill Stewart did when he was Minister of Agriculture and Food, bang his fist on the desk and convince his colleagues that agriculture is too important in this province to let it go down the tubes?

When is he going to stop using the old argument that he cannot do anything because it would appear to be bargaining in bad faith for a tripartite stabilization program, when no other provincial minister uses that argument? We do not know when there is going to be a tripartite stabilization program. It may be next year or the year after; who knows? Is it not more important to keep our farmers in business so they can participate in the tripartite stabilization program whenever it comes into effect?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The member should take the time -- I doubt he will, but I think many objective people would -- to go through the list of the new programs that have been brought in by this ministry during my time as minister. I also ask him to look at the 16 per cent increase this year in my base estimates as compared to last year and as compared to the overall government restraint program. I have no reason to be ashamed of the measures I have taken in support of agriculture.

My point is that I do not try to be all things to all people. I have always been prepared to take a stand. When the answer is appropriately no, I have always been prepared to say no. I have done that in this case with respect to the repeated proposal for a government subsidy or handout. It would be a serious mistake. It would do a lot of damage to the industry in the long run.

I am not prepared to follow some of the lines the member has proposed from time to time which may seem to be expedient at the moment but which will damage agriculture in the long run.

HYDRO RATES

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy concerning Ontario Hydro power rates and the irresponsible borrowing practices of Ontario Hydro.

Is the minister aware that between 1978 and 1983, Ontario Hydro lost $297 million on foreign exchange losses because of fluctuations in the dollar? That was translated to power costs, and every consumer in this province paid for Ontario Hydro's mismanagement. Does he know what rate increases that has translated into for every power consumer in this province? If he is aware of it, has he expressed his concern to Ontario Hydro because of the massive exposure we have had through borrowing on foreign markets?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious to most members of the House that from time to time in its borrowing Ontario Hydro has to experience the fluctuations of the rates on the international market. Of course, the Leader of the Opposition is right that because of the mandate given Ontario Hydro, these fluctuations must be passed on to electrical consumers; but it is most unfair to suggest this is mismanagement. Ontario Hydro has a record of making its bond issues at the most appropriate time. Most recently, those issues have been well received on the market, and there has been a very rapid takeup of those issues.

Mr. Peterson: That has nothing to do with it. I asked the minister what the consumers in this province were paying. Let me remind him, in case he does not know; is he aware that over the past six or seven years, 20 per cent of the rate increase was due to foreign exchange losses? Is he aware that is transferred to every person's bill in this province?

Between 1978 and 1983 we lost $297 million. In 1984 we will lose an estimated $89 million. In 1985 it is estimated we will lose another $79 million. We will have lost close to $500 million over an eight-year period. The consumers are paying that because of the borrowing in the United States and the foreign exchange losses. Is the minister aware of that? What instructions is he giving Ontario Hydro with respect to its borrowing to eliminate that kind of exposure?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: I can only reiterate that Ontario Hydro's borrowings are the prerogative of the Ontario Hydro board. They will borrow at the most propitious moment. They are regulated by the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) and reviewed by him. They go to the market when it is necessary and when they see an opportunity that would be advantageous to the corporation and the Ontario electrical consumer.

2:20 p.m.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, the hard fact remains that, as we have said many times in this House, a very healthy chunk of all the rate increases paid by the consumers of this province is as a result of Hydro's extravagant borrowing, its incredible overbuilding and the fact that the vast majority of its borrowing takes place on foreign markets at a time when our dollar is falling through the floor.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: Given the fact that the government of Ontario guarantees all Hydro's borrowing, does the minister not feel it would be an essential part of provincial policy that Ontario Hydro start looking seriously at Canadian capital markets far more realistically? First of all, it should reduce its overall borrowing requirements, stop the Darlington project because we simply cannot afford it and do not need it, and do its borrowing in Canada in order to ensure that Ontario consumers do not pay the whole shot for Hydro's foolishness with respect to borrowing in the United States.

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, I can provide the honourable member with the full details of where Ontario Hydro does its borrowing. If I were to do that, he would see that a fair proportion of the borrowing took place in Canada.

It is also fair and reasonable to point out that where borrowings are necessary and have taken place, they have been done to the best advantage of the corporation and its customers.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I point out to the minister with great respect that he is wrong. I think he should apprise himself of the facts so he can communicate meaningfully with Ontario Hydro on this most significant issue.

Granted, Ontario Hydro decides what it is going to borrow and when, but it is approved by the cabinet. The minister has systematically prevented us from bringing in legislation that would require legislative approval and control over those borrowings.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: Is the minister aware that in addition to a $300-million realized foreign exchange loss, we are sitting on top of another potential exchange loss of close to $1 billion if that debt had to be paid off today? Just to have an idea of how it grows month by month and year by year, on December 31, 1982, it was $848 million; at the end of 1983 it was $925 million; today, with a 77-cent dollar, it is $960 million in unrealized losses.

Will the minister go to Ontario Hydro and impress upon it that he now understands the potential risk to which it is putting the power consumers of Ontario by this huge overborrowing in the United States and encourage it to borrow less and borrow in Canadian markets to cut our exposure?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) becomes an expert in the foreign exchange markets when he can review them after the fact. That is what he is doing in drawing this comparison.

TECHNICAL EDUCATION

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Education confirm whether her ministry has conducted a survey of boards of education across the province with respect to the impact of the Ontario Schools: Intermediate and Senior Divisions program and the potential impact on layoffs of teachers and reduced enrolment in certain technical courses?

Can the minister also confirm the survey shows that so far more than 670 teachers in 36 boards are expected to be declared redundant across Ontario? What is the minister going to do about this tragic problem?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, we did do a survey and the figures I have do not approximate to anything suggested by the honourable member.

Mr. Rae: I have a photocopy of a telephone survey letter signed by Mr. J. J. Sullivan, together with a document called Provincial Report: Rough Draft. In question 3 on redundant teachers, 36 boards responded -- eastern Ontario saying yes, eight boards; northwestern Ontario, three; western Ontario, five boards reporting 46 teachers; mid-northern Ontario, three boards reporting 70 teachers; northeastern Ontario, three boards reporting six teachers; central Ontario, 14 boards indicating over 400 teachers to be declared redundant.

Can the minister confirm the existence of this report? If she is denying the existence of the report, we have asked questions about this since April and we are now in June. When is the minister going to indicate to the House what she plans to do to stop the fundamental irrationality and absurdity of seeing hundreds of teachers laid off at a time when every observer recognizes education is one of the key issues facing Ontario today and in the future and at a time when education is such a priority for this province? When is she going to present a report to deal with the incredible absurdity of government policy in that regard?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It is very easy for the member to determine that the actions taken by school boards or teachers relate entirely to the implementation of OSIS. I think he is totally wrong. None the less, we have had an intensive discussion with a number of representatives of boards. I remind the member that significantly more than 36 boards were surveyed.

We had varied reactions from boards. With a number of boards the matter has already been resolved because they had enough flexibility in their administration and in their capability for implementation to ensure that no teachers were going to be significantly affected by whatever happened with the decisions of the students for participation in programs in the first year.

It is interesting that our suspicion was confirmed. In those areas in which there was no rigidity in the implementation of the OSIS regulations there was little problem, particularly in relation to technical teachers. Those are the teachers the member has been primarily concerned about. Those are the teachers about whom the members across the floor have asked questions.

We have been working with the boards in the development of alternative programs to ensure that the teachers who will be needed this year -- if not this year, next year and thereafter -- for the instruction of all students who must be involved in technical and business programs for the first time will be there and will be available to students. I think we have had a very useful kind of conversation with them. We do not give them orders, but we certainly have given them suggestions.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, in this whole episode it seems the minister has now blamed principals, guidance teachers and boards of education when it has not worked out the way the minister has suggested it should.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Bradley: Is the minister now prepared to accept the recommendations of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, which were announced at a press conference by the president of that association not long ago when we raised this matter in the House?

Specifically, is she prepared to accept the recommendation that a special committee or group be set up to review OSIS, consisting of teachers and others involved in education, and to look at the impact of OSIS on enrolment in various courses? Is she prepared to slow this onslaught towards the implementation of OSIS in 1984-85 when she does not have the curriculum ready and when it is causing such dislocation?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member knows not whereof he speaks. Within the past 10 days there has been a useful meeting with representatives of OSSTF. There has been discussion of many of the recommendations they have made. It is our responsibility to monitor the impact and that is precisely what we are doing.

To suggest that the implementation of OSIS is an onslaught for the students of this province is sheer -- I was going to use the word "hypocrisy" but Mr. Speaker would find that unparliamentary. Therefore, although it totally defines my feeling, I shall have to say it is sheer ludicrous activity on the part of the member to suggest that.

The students in this province must be in a position to face the students who graduate from schools in all other jurisdictions. All we are trying to do is to make sure they have the educational background to meet that challenge this decade, next decade and into the 21st century. That is my intention. That is what we are doing and what we shall continue to do. To call that an onslaught is to detract totally from the educational system in this province, from the professionalism of teachers and from the qualities of boards of education.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. Rae: The Minister of Education is travelling at least 100 miles from the facts of this situation. She has not come forward with any clear-cut information in this House. She has continued to stonewall and bamboozle since this issue was raised in April.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: Can the minister confirm that 38 of 109 boards reported a problem, 27 boards reported no problem and 12 boards did not give a response? Of those saying there was a problem, 19 boards believe the problem is a long-term problem.

Given that the onslaught has affected the employment security of literally hundreds of teachers across this province and the opportunity and sense of chance and hope of thousands of students, when will this government recognize that the policy it has carried out has been a disaster, should be stopped in its tracks and something put in its place which ensures employment security for teachers and opportunity for young people at the same time?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The member knows full well the kind of suggestion he is making is entirely incorrect. We are concerned primarily with the educational program for students. That is our primary responsibility. It will continue to be our primary responsibility. It is one we shall carry out. I shall be very glad to share the facts with the member and with this House. I had them ready last week to respond to any question that was raised, but nobody raised the question last week. I do not have them with me today.

Mr. Martel: Why does the minister not make a statement?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I shall be pleased to make a statement to this House this week about that situation and it will provide all of the facts that are available. I have not stonewalled anything. The only stonewall is the antediluvian attitude of the leader of the third party.

EQUAL PAY FOR WORK OF EQUAL VALUE

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Premier with respect to equal pay for work of equal value. A number of weeks ago, on April 26, the Premier stated in the House that he was particularly disturbed by an example that was raised in the course of discussions he had with respect to equal pay for work of equal value. He told the House the example that disturbed him was the discrepancy between two kinds of clerks working in grocery stores in the province.

I would like to ask whether he has done anything about feeling disturbed and whether he could report to the House on any investigations he or his office may have carried out with respect to that discrepancy.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to recall. I think the individual who raised this with me was working in Brockville, if memory serves me correctly. The differential was between two classifications of clerks. My understanding was somewhat different from that of the honourable member, but we were talking about the same situation. I have asked the very distinguished member for Brock (Mr. Welch) to look into this situation.

Mr. Rae: That was more than a month and a half ago. Since the Premier responded to it, in case the member for Brock has not given him this study, he might like to know that it affects literally thousands of clerks working in grocery stores, that women are paid on average $26 a week less than men and that there is a wage gap of more than $1,300 a year.

That is simply as a result of a tradition established by the companies that those who are cashiers, price-change clerks, meat wrappers and bakery counter clerks are paid less than those who are shelf stockers or carry-out clerks or those who pack groceries. That discrimination is real. It is not confined to one store and it is not confined to one person. It is real and it is systemic.

When is the Premier going to accept the amendment we have placed to the bill in the name of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay), an amendment that would guarantee equal pay for work of equal value and guarantee that women who are affected by this situation will be able, finally and at last, after literally 10 decades of discrimination in this instance and in other cases, to do something about it? When is he going to accept that amendment so we can do something for the women of this province who are earning so much less than men?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, if the member were really sincere about this issue he would expedite the passage of Bill 141.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, the store involved was Dominion. If the Premier will take the time to look into the two categories of clerks involved, he will find very quickly that the company will argue there are dissimilar jobs involved.

Will the Premier please stand in his place and tell this House and the women of Ontario how the passage of Bill 141 will help that individual woman who came to see him a month and a half ago, and thousands of other women in Ontario? The fact of the matter is it will not. We cannot compare dissimilar jobs under Bill 141 and the Premier knows it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, once again I am going by memory. In the situation in the Brockville store, I am not sure whether it was just women involved. As I recall, it was part-time as well as full-time work.

Ms. Copps: Shelf stockers versus cashiers.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes. It was not necessarily male-female. I am just trying to keep the record straight according to my recollection. The passage of Bill 141 will not solve all the problems -- no one is suggesting it will -- but it certainly would be a very significant step in the right direction. The member might urge the members across the way to pass this bill.

He might also ask his leader, who was at the Argus Corp. annual dinner according to Zena Cherry, whether he raised it with the people at Dominion Stores.

Mr. Rae: The reason we are not pushing ahead with Bill 141, and the reason we are insisting on our amendment to Bill 141, is precisely because we think it is only our amendment that allows people to make a comparison between jobs that the company says are dissimilar. It allows them to go to somebody and get that determination changed.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: It allows people to get equal pay for work of equal value. The government's bill does not give equal pay for work of equal value and the Premier knows it. He knows perfectly well it does not.

We have interviewed the salary administrator of Dominion Stores who says the gap is there because the work is dissimilar. He also stated that workers are paid the segregated wage rates even when, on occasion, they have to perform each other's work. He confirmed that part-time workers performing either of these jobs are paid the same amount when working at the top rate of $9.50 an hour.

The discrimination and the anomalies are there. They are obvious and self-evident. Why will the Premier not accept our amendment to Bill 141? That will finally give the workers of this province a chance to put in a plea for equal pay for work of equal value and have that adjudicated in a fair way. When will he take the power away from the employers of this province and give it to an independent board that will finally give the workers some kind of justice when it comes to equal pay?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can only repeat this. I can understand the leader of the New Democratic Party wishing to maintain his view on this issue. I do not quarrel with that. What I cannot understand is his holding up legislation that would be extremely beneficial to a lot of working people in this province. He sits there day after day delaying this important, significant step forward.

USE OF GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Premier. I want to go back to his attendance at the Blue Jay ball game at Detroit. Will he confirm for me that the scenario for his trip was a government plane to Windsor, an Ontario Provincial Police car to the river, the use of a government 36-foot launch to get across the river and an OPP car to get him to the ball game? Will he confirm that is the scenario for the attendance at the game?

2:40 p.m.

If that is the case, will he advise us of the policy on the use of such government boats, cars, etc.? Does he plan to reimburse the public for the use of the boat? Can he advise us why he could not use the bridge, as everybody else around there did?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am delighted to use the bridge. As a matter of fact, if the honourable member is at all familiar with it, as he might be if he were ever to attend that community or if he were to be in the House here on occasion as well, he might find access through the tunnel to Tiger Stadium to be more convenient than over the bridge, as I have found on the two occasions I have been there. He might find differently, but that is the route I have followed.

Mr. Wrye: It is not necessarily so. Do not be silly.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have travelled by the tunnel. I have not gone over the bridge to Tiger Stadium. I would be delighted to confirm to the honourable member that when I am away --

Mr. Foulds: Like the dome, it is under the water.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, in fact. Regrettably, the way things are, I am in an OPP cruiser.

Mr. Roy: If the Premier will confirm, and he seems to be suggesting this, that the use of the boat and the pulling of this boat from its regular duty of patrolling the river was necessary for security reasons or the use of the plane was necessary for security reasons, why is he reimbursing the government?

Second, if all of this scenario is for the Premier's protection and security, how does he follow the logic of the argument that after all this exercise they are dropping him into a stadium with 45,000 screaming fans in one of the crime capitals of the world?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I regret the honourable member refers to Detroit as one of the crime capitals of the world.

Mr. Roy: That is a fact.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If he wants to say that, he can go ahead; be my guest. I think it is regrettable he is so negative and critical about our next-door neighbour, the city of Detroit.

Mr. Roy: About your use of government vehicles, yes.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: There is no secret, though I do not talk much about it. I do not like to talk about it, but I do use OPP security. On this particular occasion, there was no question. It ordinarily takes somewhere between 10 and 15 minutes with the OPP. I was there some weeks ago and they very kindly invited me to inspect their new patrol craft. I think the width of the river at that particular point is roughly three quarters of a mile. The members from Windsor will understand that. I found it really quite pleasant. It is not the first time I have been on an OPP boat nor will it be the last; I expect to be on one again.

I should also point out to the honourable member that he loves to raise these issues. I know his leader was quoted in the Kitchener-Waterloo Record as one of the three who contributes to this very important part of the debate. I will just pose a question to him. What does he think of a head of a government arriving at a totally political event by helicopter at a certain person's farm?

VISITATION RIGHTS

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), I have a question for the Provincial Secretary for Justice.

Is the minister aware of a program entitled Access for Parents and Children? This is a service which allows visitation to parents without custody and which is currently funded by the United Church of Canada. Does the minister agree with the statements by Judges Fisher and Thomson of Etobicoke that there is a need for such a program? Does he agree that the program, which was started as a pilot project in 1982, has now proved itself?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the program that is operated by the United Church and to which the honourable member is referring.

Mr. Philip: In the persistent absence of the Attorney General, given the fact that it can be very expensive and time consuming for a parent who has legal custody of a child to get his child returned even from a neighbouring province, given the fact that in 1983 the number of people using this preventive service doubled to 877 visits, and given the fact that 80 per cent of the visits are court directed, will the minister and the Attorney General now undertake the initiative to fund this project on a permanent basis, since the referrals are from the Attorney General and from the courts, and to expand it so that it may expand into downtown Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Walker: I am sure the Attorney General had an opportunity to answer that question in the course of his estimates, had it been raised by the member in the committee. Second, it could possibly rank in the Attorney General's priorities, but at the moment it does not. It may at some time; who knows?

CONFLICT OF OWNERSHIP

Mr. Cureatz: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Government Services. Is the minister aware of what appears to be the growing controversy between the regional municipality of Durham and the city of Oshawa concerning who owns the former courts of justice and administration buildings of the former county of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the issue and the dispute that currently exists between the regional municipality of Durham and the city of Oshawa.

Mr. Cureatz: I am glad the minister is aware of it. Will he guarantee that he will not intervene in any way whatsoever in regard to the conflict over ownership of the building? Will he assure us he will respect local government autonomy and let those two municipalities work out their differences?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: I am afraid I cannot make that commitment. I feel I have an obligation not only as a minister of the crown, but also as a member representing taxpayers in that area. As far as the actual difference of opinion is concerned, there is no doubt it will ultimately be decided by negotiations and/or legal advice and/or legislation.

However, I do have some thoughts on the issue and the background of the issue because I was an important part of that administration when it was set up, effective January 1, 1974. Therefore, I have some personal knowledge of the issue. Last but not least, the important thing -- and I am sure my colleague agrees -- is that the rights and fairness of our system and of the taxpayers we mutually represent should be respected.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, will the minister tell us on what grounds he has intervened in what is essentially a decision to be taken, initially at least, by the regional municipality of Durham? On what basis does a minister of the crown intervene in a local municipal issue of that nature? On what basis does he make the city of Oshawa, the town of Whitby and the regional municipality of Durham deal with his ministry first and foremost? Would the minister not be better off keeping his obnoxious snoot out of that business?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: It sure takes one to know one.

Mr. Swart: Good line, George.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Now for the answer.

Mr. Wildman: Dazzle us with your wit.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Sometimes it takes a half-wit to recognize wit.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I presume the minister has an answer.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: There is no doubt this is being perceived by some as just a municipal issue. In the context of the Regional Municipality of Durham Act, which established the regional municipality of Durham, it was a piece of legislation enacted by this Legislature, unless my memory escapes me. I think part of the interpretation of the act, quite rightly, falls within the responsibility of this government of which I have the honour to be a part.

YOUNG FARMERS

Mr. McKessock: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. It is unfortunate that when all the ideas and suggestions from the farmers across Ontario are put together, the minister cannot come up with some programs of long-term, lasting value, especially for the young farmers of Ontario.

2:50 p.m.

What am I to tell the farmers who are calling me and saying they see no way their sons can get into farming in Ontario with the lack of government assistance? What do I tell the young farmers who call me to say the five per cent interest rebate on mortgages is not good enough and does not provide the stability needed for them to start farming? They tell me they need a longer term, up to at least 20 years, because of the great possibility that at the end of five years the interest rate incurred at that time could very well put them into bankruptcy.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I think the honourable member can tell them with some pride that in the slightly more than nine months of operation of the beginning farmer assistance program we have approved applications by more than 800 individuals for rebates of five per cent on average long-term debts of about $130,000 to $131,000.

There are more than 800 individuals, whose applications have been approved for rebates on average in excess of $6,500 a year for five years, who are testimony to the success of that program. I recognize, as I am sure the member does, that in government one can never please all people but clearly that is a program that has touched the right nerve.

Mr. McKessock: Is the minister prepared, under the beginning farmer assistance program, at least to make it retroactive to 1981 and to make it available to young farmers who have been renting over that period of time, trying to save enough money to make a down payment on a farm?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The renting issue cuts both ways. For an individual who has not been a full-time farmer, who has not been gaining the majority of his or her income from farming and who proposes to start to do it on rented or partly rented land, we will look at that application. It cuts the other way too. Where an individual has been working off rented land and working full-time in farming, he does not qualify if he started prior to January 1, 1983.

The answer to the first part of the member's question is no, I am not going to move the date back any further. What I am doing is advancing proposals to the federal government with respect to agribonds. If we can get a joint initiative there, we should be able to target a broader group, particularly those people who began their farming careers from the mid- to late-1970s up to the point where our beginning farmer assistance program kicks in at January 1, 1983. That is one of the benefits of our joint initiative.

I am sure that as the members of the Liberal Party all sat at the feet of the master last Saturday in the Ottawa Civic Centre, they were saying to John: "We like what you said last night about preserving the family farm. One of the things you can do to help us do that in Ontario and the rest of the country is to accept Ontario's proposal for agribonds."

FARM ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

I think anyone familiar with the farm situation would agree that the four requests made by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture in their brief today are reasonable and responsible requests.

The minister may dismiss the red meat proposal, saying he cannot get agreement, but that is just an excuse. He knows it is a voluntary program; people do not have to go into it if they do not want to.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Swart: I want to ask a question about the Ontario farm adjustment assistance program, because there is no disagreement among the organizations about expanding OFAAP, and that is requested in the proposal.

Is it not true that the minister told us when he initiated the plan that he was putting $60 million into the program and that later he suggested he might be putting another $20 million into it, for a total of $80 million? Is it also not true that for the 1982 program he paid out, at most, $25.3 million to the farmers, that in the 1983 program he paid out only $4.8 million and that the 1984 program has just started, so there is nothing in it at all?

Why does the minister not expand OFAAP to make it more generous and kick in an interest rate at 10 per cent as requested by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture when he already has the money promised to do it?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, we discussed this very point in estimates last November or December, and my answer then would be the same today; that is, when we began the program, that was an estimate of the cost.

Probably when we start a program like this, which is breaking completely new ground and where we really cannot predict with any certainty what the expenditures will be, we should budget $1 to establish the line account in the budget and then spend whatever is necessary according to the terms of the program.

In the fall of 1982, I announced the extension of the program. I remind the honourable member that within weeks of becoming minister I did broaden the terms of OFAAP so that it would include more farmers. In the fall of 1982, when I announced its extension, I indicated it could cost as much as another $20 million -- again an estimate.

The actual expenditures have been less than the amount budgeted. However, there are many other programs in my ministry, the farm tax rebate program or whatever -- I see you want me to be brief, Mr. Speaker, and I will try -- for which we have gone over budget in those years. For every program members can point to where our expenditure estimates were high, I can point to some where we had to spend more to meet the real needs of agriculture.

Mr. Swart: We on this side of the House can he forgiven for getting a little sick of hearing about all the other programs. The simple facts are that the Ontario government spends less on agriculture as a proportion of its budget than any other province in Canada except Newfoundland.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Swart: Does the minister not realize that because of the difficulties the farmers have been going through, the 14 per cent interest rate they have to pay now is as difficult as perhaps 16 per cent or 18 per cent or 20 per cent was a couple of years ago? If he really wants to assist the farmers, why does he not at least lower that kick-in to 10 per cent? Why does he not change the program so that the money goes to the farmers?

Can the minister confirm that in the 1983 program the farmers themselves were paid some $400,000, but the banks got $4.2 million in guarantees, 10 times as much? Does he not think it is better for the money to be fed to the farmers than to the banks?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: To answer the last of those three questions first, the guarantees are made on loans given not just by the banks, but in some cases by trust companies and in other cases by credit unions, many of whose members would be members of the farm community. That is one part of the program that has been very popular, because using option C under OFAAP has meant the difference between farming or not farming for a good many people.

With respect to interest rates, which we discussed when I met with federation representatives at noon, we are talking about a program broader than just agriculture that looms on the horizon. It is a problem that the federal government is simply going to have to address on behalf of all sectors of the economy.

In the recent race for the prime ministership, there was a lot of talk about capping interest rates. Naturally, if the federal government is going to pursue that kind of policy, one would hope it would do so quickly to relieve a lot of concern in the agricultural sector and across the economy.

I want to point out that in terms of spending this government does not take a back seat to anyone. We do not claim to have the highest percentage of our budget devoted to agriculture, but we are in the middle range of all the provinces. In fact, with the budget of $334.7 million in my ministry, expenditures in the Ministry of Revenue for such things as sales tax rebates and fuel tax rebates, and the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program, the total spending by this government in this area this year will be almost half a billion dollars.

RED MEAT PLAN

Mr. Wiseman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

This morning on Canada AM I listened very closely to the legislation that is on the books to be passed before the federal government adjourns for the summer. The stabilization program for red meat was not one of the programs mentioned. If we were to listen to the rumours that the federal Minister of Agriculture will be replaced by someone else and if we were to listen to some of the other rumours that we will be seeing a federal election in the very near future, and in view of the fact that the farmers of Ontario and of the country have been promised a stabilization program that will not come through if that happens, is the Minister of Agriculture and Food prepared to go it alone, to help the farmers once again and bail out the federal government?

Mr. Harris: That is the only good question that has been asked today.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) is quite right. That has been the only relevant question asked of this minister today.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

3 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The honourable member knows well, because I have been keeping all the members well informed on the progress of these discussions, that we do have the commitment of the federal government as of February 10 to support the tripartite stabilization. On about April 9 or April 10, the federal minister issued a press release -- I have a copy of it here for anybody who is interested -- indicating the federal cabinet had approved the legislation to give effect to what we agreed to in February.

I have been in regular touch with the federal government at various levels all through the recent leadership campaign to keep this issue in the forefront. This morning I spoke with the present federal Minister of Agriculture and he assured me the federal position is that if it can get agreement to quick passage of the bill in the House of Commons, it will be introduced.

I followed up that conversation with a call to the eastern Canadian agricultural critic for the official Opposition in the House of Commons and he assured me his party is prepared to give it quick passage; so I should know later today. Mr. Whelan was going to let me know if he foresaw any problems about introduction. Based on what Mr. Cardiff, the MP for Huron-Bruce, said to me in response to what Mr. Whelan had said to me, it seems there is still a good chance the legislation can get through.

Now to answer the second part of the question --

Mr. Speaker: I think in view of the time we had better have a supplementary.

Mr. Wiseman: Mr. Speaker, perhaps we could let the minister finish the last part of the question, because to me that is very important.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member's supplementary. I have to believe the present federal Minister of Agriculture and the present federal government will keep their word, because they are very firmly on the record. In the April press release Mr. Whelan said getting this through was one of the highlights of his 11 years as Minister of Agriculture.

Obviously I am looking at my options if they break their word and the legislation is not passed, because I do not want to let down the red meat industry.

Mr. Riddell: Why is the minister endeavouring to make the farmers believe the tripartite stabilization program is their survival kit, their panacea or whatever? Let us take a look at the Ontario Federation of Agriculture's own figures. In 1983, for slaughter cattle under the tripartite stabilization program, there would be a payout of $2.07 per head and the premium paid would be $6.93. In other words, the premium amounts to more than the payout.

Why is the minister leading the farmers to believe this is their survival kit? Why does he not do something in this province to help the farmers out with the crisis they find themselves in?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The tripartite stabilization program has never been intended, and I have never described it to anybody, as a cure-all.

Mr. Riddell: The minister says that all the time.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: It is one part, and if the honourable member would study the record, he would know that here, in estimates, anywhere out in the country -- and I have travelled extensively meeting farmers all over Ontario -- I point out that this is one part of the answer to the problems of that sector. The red meat plan is another part of the answer. The agribond proposal is another part of the answer. Our proposals on section 31 of the Income Tax Act are another part of the answer. The beginning farmer assistance program is another part of the answer. The enrichment of the property tax rebate program is another part of the answer. The tripartite stabilization program is only one part.

If we take the program as it has been negotiated with the federal government, the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, the Canadian Pork Council, the Canadian Sheep Breeders Association and the other provinces, and if we assume 100 per cent participation for the slaughter cattle program between 1981 and 1983, the premiums paid would have been $16,707,000 and the payouts would have been $39,960,000.

Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

MEMBERS' EXPENDITURES

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I want to raise with you, sir, the publication today of the individual members' expenditures for the fiscal year 1983-84. I want to ask you why we should continue to put up with the blarney that is in here that tells us the Premier (Mr. Davis) did not spend any money on long-distance phone calls and no money on translations.

If we look through the list of cabinet ministers, we find none of them took any trips they charged to their assembly accounts. They all come out looking as if they have not spent any money at all, when everybody in this place knows perfectly well everything they do is deep-sixed and buried deep within their ministerial budgets.

On behalf of my party and my colleagues, I am a little tired of seeing information about the spending on that side totally and systematically underestimated at the same time as our information is made public.

I have no objection to everyone knowing what our budgets and accounts are. What I object to is the way the cabinet members systematically bury their expenditures every time in a way that is fundamentally misleading to the taxpayers of this province.

Mr. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of privilege: Last year at approximately this time I raised the same matter in the Legislature with the Premier. Many members, not only on this side of the House but also on that side, went back to their ridings to find local newspaper headlines stating that the local member outspends the Premier and other cabinet ministers.

I raised the matter with the Premier in his estimates and he said he would have his staff look into it and see that it was corrected this year. As the leader of the third party has said, that has not taken place. It places not only the members of the opposition but also other members of the government party at a disadvantage. Since the Premier has stated he will look into it, I hope he will look into it next year if he is still around.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join my colleagues in support of full publication of all expenditures.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Proceed, please.

Mr. Mancini: The points made are very apt and accurate. It is somewhat dismaying to see the government ministers being driven around. It is fine if that is one of the perks they have decided to give themselves, but those perks should not be listed as part of the legitimate expenditures under the rules they have adopted. I draw to your attention for your information, Mr. Speaker, the expenses listed under the name of the Speaker. As I look under the word "accommodation," I see that --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel).

Mr. Mancini: I am not finished.

Mr. Speaker: Order. You have made your point.

Mr. Mancini: I have not done anything out of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Mancini: I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to listen to my point in the same way you listened to the points of the member for Quinte (Mr. O'Neil) and the member for York South (Mr. Rae).

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will not tolerate any reference to the chair. I have made that point before and I make it again. The member for Sudbury East.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I am not saying anything out of order. In no way am I trying to demean the chair.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I caution the member for Essex South to resume his seat.

Mr. Mancini: I have not done anything out of order. I think it is advisable for you, Mr. Speaker, to treat every member alike.

3:10 p.m.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I have a feeling that a lack of understanding in this situation may lead to something no one wants to have happen. I am sure you are aware that my colleague is not criticizing the chair or its incumbent. He is simply indicating that whoever is Speaker of this House has an apartment provided -- it used to be a member of the New Democratic Party, for example -- and it is not charged in this book at all.

This is a matter that is in no way critical of the Speaker's position or the chairmanship. It is simply an indication of how misleading this information can be.

Mr. Speaker: You are quite right, of course, and that was not my objection; it is a well-known fact and no great secret. But I will not condone any reference to me as a person when I cannot reply.

Mr. Mancini: If that is your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw the reference to the chair.

Mr. Speaker: Fine. Now, will you please resume your seat?

An hon. member: He has not finished.

Mr. Speaker: I think he has made his point quite well.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, it is not fair for you not to allow me to finish.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable member will please resume his seat. The member for Sudbury East.

Mr. Mancini: On what grounds will you not allow me to continue? I have not done anything out of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Nixon: Let us make it clear. He has withdrawn the reference.

Mr. Speaker: I realize that. I think this is getting rather repetitious. Everybody is making the same point. I was willing to hear what you had to say.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, on this matter, as you know --

Mr. Mancini: Oh, no. On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: You are not going to say to me I cannot continue and then allow the New Democratic Party House leader to continue.

Ms. Copps: He has the same privileges as anybody else does.

Mr. Speaker: Let me make a ruling right now that it is not a matter of privilege. Nobody's privileges have been offended in any way, shape or form. I know exactly what you are saying, but it is beyond the jurisdiction and authority of the chair to deal with it.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, this information was tabled by you. If it is not a fair representation of all the facts in the view of some honourable members, surely they have a right to bring it to the attention of the House and the public by addressing you.

Mr. Speaker: I point out to the House leader of the Liberal Party that is exactly what they have done. I have allowed the members to make their point. I think they have made it extremely well. We have heard enough of this. Everybody is saying the same thing, as I said before. The member will please resume his seat.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have been on this now for a year and a half --

Mr. Speaker: Yes, you have indeed. Order.

Mr. Martel: -- at board meeting after board meeting to get to the point about some resolution of this. We had several board meetings at which I said it was unfair --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Martel: I said it was unfair then and it is unfair now --

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sudbury East will please resume his seat.

Mr. Martel: You cannot hide any more behind what you are doing. Every time I raised this at the board --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It is within the estimates of every single ministry.

Mr. Martel: Do not give me that nonsense. I have tried over and over again --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Everybody understands what you are saying.

Mr. Martel: I am going to speak on the point of order.

Mr. Speaker: The point has been well made.

Interjections.

Mr. Martel: Might I ask the Speaker for some assistance then?

Mr. Speaker: There is no provision in the standing orders to ask the Speaker anything.

Mr. Martel: I am trying to rise on a point of order. Mr. Speaker, what are we --

Mr. Mancini: Oh no, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Martel: I have the floor on a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If I may explain my position -- will both members please resume their seats? The member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) rose on a point of privilege to support the original point made by the member for York South. I listened to him.

Ms. Copps: You cut him off.

Mr. Speaker: I did with due reason. I also made a ruling, with all respect, that it is not a point of privilege. The member for Sudbury East has risen on a point of order. I have recognized him and I am willing to hear whatever the point of order may be.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the New Democratic Party rose on a point of order.

Interjections.

Mr. Mancini: The member for Quinte rose on a point of order. I rose on a point of order. I am the only member you have refused to hear today.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Mancini: You did not even allow me to describe the fact that I --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Mancini: You are not going to allow the House leader for the New Democratic Party to speak when you have not given me the same privilege.

Mr. Speaker: I advise the honourable member, as he well knows, that he is not going to direct me to do anything.

Mr. Mancini: I have every right to state my case; I have every right to --

Mr. Speaker: You have indeed, which you have done.

Mr. Mancini: -- and I wish to be treated equally; to receive the same treatment as other members.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I am seeking your assistance on the point of order.

Mr. Speaker: I am listening carefully.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that this matter has been raised on a number of occasions both here in the House and before the Board of Internal Economy, and in view of the fact that the same malarkey continues to be printed, can you advise me how we can ensure that the figures for everyone are presented at the same time? Will you just answer that for me?

Mr. Rae: In ways that are comparable.

Mr. Martel: So they are all there before everyone.

Mr. Speaker: Obviously I cannot answer that. Quite clearly, the honourable members have made their point; the government House leader has listened attentively, as have other members.

Mr. Bradley: He listened last year and he did not do anything.

Mr. Speaker: Order. As the member knows, it is beyond my authority and jurisdiction to deal with this. We do talk about these matters at the Board of Internal Economy, as he well knows.

Mr. Mancini: You tabled this, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. O'Neil: Let us hear it from the Premier.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have the opportunity to finish --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Member for Essex South, just sit down for a moment. Sit down, please.

Mr. Mancini: I sat down and I gave the House leader of the New Democratic Party the opportunity to speak, because I was under the impression that you were going to allow me to finish my earlier point. Was I under the wrong impression, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: Will you please resume your seat. Quite obviously you did not listen to my ruling. It is not a matter of privilege, nor is it a matter of order.

Ms. Copps: He said it was a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. After I had made that ruling, the member for Sudbury East rose on a point of order again, to which I listened.

Ms. Copps: That is what the member for Essex South is rising on, a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: If we are going to take up the time of the House in being repetitious --

Mr. Nixon: How can we defend ourselves against information that may be misleading.

Mr. Speaker: I think you have done that very well. Order.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I will not sit down --

Mr. Speaker: Well, it is most unfortunate that you would make that decision.

Mr. Mancini: I will not be treated differently from the leader of the New Democratic Party, the member for Quinte, and the House leader of the New Democratic Party. I will not allow myself to be treated any differently in this House.

Mr. Speaker: Will the honourable member resume his seat, please.

Mr. Mancini: I was in my seat earlier, and you have tried to take my privileges of free speech away from me.

Mr. Speaker: Will the honourable member resume his seat.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I have no alternative but to name the member for Essex South, and I would ask the Sergeant at Arms --

Mr. Sweeney: This is stupid.

Mr. Speaker: I know it is, but it happens.

Mr. Mancini was escorted from the chamber by the Sergeant at Arms.

Ms. Copps: Why do you not just give him his point of order, as you gave every other member?

Mr. Speaker: I did.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Ms. Copps: You let other members speak. You muzzled him.

Mr. Speaker: No, I did not.

Ms. Copps: Yes, you did.

Mr. Martel: You cover it up year after year. You do not even send a letter out.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

3:20 p.m.

CIVIL LIBERTIES OF POLICE

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Would it be appropriate for me to remind the Premier (Mr. Davis) that on three different occasions he made a commitment to me in this House that he would investigate a very serious situation whereby a member of the Ontario Provincial Police has been denied the right to sit on a school board?

This was done by regulation promulgated by the Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet (Mr. McCague) and, I presume, with the full knowledge of the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor). The Premier agreed on three different occasions to look into it to see that the civil liberties and the human rights of this very dedicated OPP officer were not being abrogated, and he has not lived up to that commitment.

Mr. Speaker: I must point out that is not a point of order, but obviously you have made your point and the Premier has listened to you and will undoubtedly respond.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, speaking to the point of order --

Mr. Peterson: I rose first.

Mr. Speaker: It was not a point of order.

MEMBERS' EXPENDITURES

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, you just ruled it was not a point of order. I can see the confusion, because no one knows what a point of order or a point of privilege is under your -- shall I be charitable? -- varying, different analyses of these kinds of rules of this House. I regret very much this has arisen, but one of the realities is that there are many members of the House who feel the only recourse is to bring to your attention something you tabled. Nothing has been done.

You have ruled that it is not a legitimate point of privilege or a point of order. I say to you respectfully, sir, you are wrong. There is no other recourse and, as a result, my colleagues and I are obliged to challenge your ruling.

4:07 p.m.

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

Ayes

Andrewes, Ashe, Baetz, Barlow, Bennett, Bernier, Birch, Brandt, Cousens, Cureatz, Davis, Dean, Drea, Eaton, Elgie, Eves, Fish, Gillies, Gordon, Gregory, Grossman, Harris, Havrot, Henderson, Hennessy, Hodgson, Jones, Kells, Kennedy, Kerr, Kolyn, Lane, Leluk;

MacQuarrie, McCaffrey, McCague, McEwen, McLean, McNeil, Mitchell, Norton, Piché, Pollock, Ramsay, Robinson, Rotenberg, Scrivener, Sheppard, Shymko, Snow, Stephenson, B. M., Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Taylor, G. W., Taylor, J. A., Timbrell, Treleaven, Villeneuve, Walker, Watson, Welch, Wells, Williams, Wiseman.

Nays

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

Newman, Nixon, O'Neil, Peterson, Philip, Rae, Reed, J. A., Reid, T. P., Renwick, Riddell, Roy, Ruprecht, Ruston, Samis, Sargent, Spensieri, Stokes, Swart, Sweeney, Van Horne, Wildman, Wrye.

Ayes 64; nays 47.

PETITIONS

INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS

Mr. Kolyn: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the member for Carleton (Mr. Mitchell), I table the following petition:

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

"We, the undersigned electors and residents of Carleton, beg leave to appeal to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"We appeal to the Legislature to provide form and substance in law for the basic human right of parents in Ontario to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children. The present educational policy provides no guarantees for the existence of independent schools that are one of the concrete expressions of this basic parental right.

"The supporters of these schools also face a form of financial double jeopardy through a lack of access to the compulsory and indirect taxes they must pay in support of education. We seek a just public education policy that supports all schools deemed to be in operation in the public interest."

FACILITIES FOR LEARNING DISABLED

Mr. Kolyn: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the member for Carleton (Mr. Mitchell), I also table the following petition:

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

"We, the undersigned electors and residents of Carleton, beg leave to appeal to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"We respectfully request that the Ontario government acknowledge the educational needs of learning disabled children by incorporating the right under law of independent institutions to meet their needs. While local school boards are increasingly providing facilities for the learning disabled, there yet remain significant numbers of children of average and above average abilities who require attention of a nature and extent that school boards cannot and perhaps should not be expected to provide.

"We request public support for such institutions so that the children who require specialized instruction in order to learn to read or write or concentrate can eventually take full advantage of standard educational facilities, take their rightful place in society and fulfil the roles of which they are capable."

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Mr. Sheppard from the standing committee on regulations and other statutory instruments presented a report and requested that it be placed in Orders and Notices for consideration pursuant to standing order 30(b).

Mr. Sheppard: Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the standing committee on regulations and other statutory instruments, I wish to present the committee's first report, 1984. This report completes our work on the regulations filed in 1983 and brings up to date the situation with respect to delegate legislation in Ontario and elsewhere of interest to the members of this House.

MOTION

ADJOURNMENT OF COMMITTEE

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that members of the select committee on the Ombudsman be authorized to adjourn to Stockholm, Sweden, to attend the third International Ombudsmen's Conference.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

LINE FENCES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Bennett moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Eaton, first reading of Bill 111, An Act to amend Certain Acts in relation to the Line Fences Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the legislation has two purposes. One is to establish a new method of hearing appeals from the awards of municipal fence-viewers. The bill proposes that appeals be heard by individual referees appointed for different areas of the province. These referees will be chosen on the basis of their specialized knowledge in fencing issues and of the conditions relating to line fences in Ontario, especially in agricultural areas.

This proposal is very similar to the resolution recently put forward by the member for Northumberland (Mr. Sheppard), which was passed by the House on May 31. I am very grateful for the advice of the member for Northumberland and the other members who spoke on the resolution.

The bill is being introduced for first reading only, so there will be ample opportunity for the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and all other interested parties to review the proposed changes to the act and to provide me with their comments.

MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDINARY BUSINESS

Mr. Peterson moved, seconded by Mr. Riddell, that pursuant to standing order 34(a), the ordinary business of the House be set aside in order to debate a motion of urgent public importance, namely, the deteriorating financial state of the agricultural industry in this province and the complete lack of confidence on the part of the farming community in the future economic recovery of this industry brought about by:

The continued increase in the record number of farm bankruptcies in Ontario, which increased by 157 per cent between 1979 and 1983;

The lack of provincial government financial support programs to address the immediate needs of Ontario farmers;

The lack of available short- and long-term credit for farmers at affordable interest rates;

The lack of adequate provincial government financial support to Canadian food processing industries such as Topaz Foods Ltd. of St. Thomas.

4:20 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: I beg to inform all honourable members that the notice for motion for an emergency debate has been received in time. I am looking forward with great interest to listening for up to five minutes to each party as to why it thinks the ordinary business of the House should be set aside.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have five minutes to attempt to persuade you, and through you the members of this Legislature from all parties, that we must devote the remainder of the afternoon -- and it should be far longer than that -- to discussing the problems in the agricultural community in this province.

You recognize and I recognize that we in the opposition have a limited number of devices in order to put forward our concerns. It is not without consideration that we move for an emergency debate, because we truly believe there is an emergency. I say in all candour that we could have said yesterday there was emergency, we could have said six months ago there was an emergency and we could have said a year ago there was an emergency. Indeed, through the collective and forceful voices of my colleagues, who are so intimately and personally familiar with the real problems in the agricultural community, we have put forward those concerns to members before.

Today we have the pleasure of having a number of representatives from the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and the farming community in the galleries. They have taken time off in a very busy season to come forward here to this Legislature to discuss their real problems with all members.

It speaks to the frustration they are experiencing; it speaks to the desperation that is being felt in the farm communities, which is not just economic in its ramifications. Not only is this a serious financial crisis that we have today, but probably even more severe, it is a sociological crisis as well.

We are seeing the face of rural Ontario changed. We are seeing less and less room for the family farmer. We are seeing second- and third-generation farmers, good people, not the speculators that some people were tough on a year or two ago and not even the entrepreneurs, but the people who are proud to be of the soil and working with the soil, virtually in a situation of desperation today through no fault of their own but through high input prices and low commodity costs for year after year -- and this has been a mounting problem.

I have the feeling sometimes that the only person who does not hear those cries is the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell). He is here to listen to me and to my colleagues. I was glad to see one of his own colleagues impress upon him the folly of some of the premises upon which he is currently operating. There is an immediate crisis. If it is not solved, the minister will see the situation deteriorate.

I am not satisfied at all with his claim that he has increased things in the last budget. Yes, he did over last year and over two years ago, but it was marginal at best, if anything, considering inflation.

Our farmers are as good as any other farmers in the world, maybe even better, but they are not playing by the same rules. We have established on other occasions that we have the lowest per capita transfer in the agricultural community of any province. They can compete against their peers in any other province, but they cannot compete against other governments and the subsidy programs of other governments, jurisdictions and provinces, that have been far more progressive than this province has been.

As we add up that erosion of capital, I suspect there is not a farmer in this province who is better off today than he or she was three years ago. One does not have to be very prophetic to look ahead, given the current situation of interest rates creeping up and not a lot of relief on the price side, and to say it is going to be worse a year from now than it is today. We can dream and we can hope, and I am one of those who hopes desperately that it will change. However, I have to say I am not optimistic.

As legislators, we have to decide whether we will address those critical problems, not only in the short term but in the long term as well. We have put our ideas forward for consideration in very specific ways. If the minister does not like them, he should come up with some better ones, but he should not try to set group against group as an excuse for inaction. That is his constant response.

After he has listened to my colleagues, my colleagues in the New Democratic Party and to some of his own colleagues, I hope he will be able to persuade his colleagues to move. The minister, who had such great promise two and a half years ago, has not delivered. We expected more.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my party, I rise to endorse the proposal that this debate should go ahead today. In one respect, I do it with some misgiving because we have injured workers in the galleries today who had been assured by an all-party agreement that the bills concerning the Workers' Compensation Board would be dealt with today. However, they will proceed this evening and tomorrow. When there is a resolution before us to set aside the business of this House to deal with the very serious problems of farmers, I and my party must support it.

I and my party consider the situation in the farming community to be serious. We found this out last fall when we had our task force and toured the province. We did not just hear in words of the problems the farmers were facing. One has to meet the farmers and to observe the way they feel in order to know the desperate situation that exists in the rural community among farmers.

Many of the farmers I met on the task force tour call me every week or every month to tell me the situation is no better and that for many of them it is worse. Regardless of how he likes to gloss it over, the call for the resignation of the minister is an indication of the desperate situation in the farming community.

There is the very fact that today all of us as MPPs were lobbied by a group of several farmers asking us to take some immediate action to help them. It is a precedent, the first time it has ever been done. That is an indication of what the farmers are suffering and of the need for various forms of assistance. There is a problem among the farming community unprecedented since the last depression.

The situation is such that the budget the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) brought down, and which was defended by the minister, provided no new assistance to farmers. There was nothing new on a red meat stabilization program. There was nothing new at all for farmers in that budget. It had all been announced before.

Everybody who is familiar with the farm situation knows the farmer's income or the farmer's share of the consumer's dollar has dropped since 1980; it is in the brief. In four years it went from something like 56 to 49 per cent. If we use the appropriate term for that, it means their income as a share has dropped by 14 per cent.

In the face of all that and the requests that have been made by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the minister today, in effect, said, "I do not intend to provide any additional assistance of any kind to you people out there." That is the sum and substance of what the minister told us today.

4:30 p.m.

I think that shows the farmers are, as of today, in a very desperate situation and this debate is needed. I also know we have to consider it an emergency. I want to say there are a number of reasons this is an emergency, an emergency as of today and as of very recently.

What has happened at Ottawa, in spite of what the minister says, is that the tripartite red meat stabilization program is in limbo. I also talked to Ottawa. I cannot say whom I talked to; I did not talk to the minister. There is very little likelihood that it is going to be dealt with in this session.

Interest rates are increasing substantially, and that is another reason this is an emergency. If the bank rate goes up again on Thursday, there is no question but that the prime rate is going to be increased. As far as the prime rate goes, it has already gone up one percentage point this year from 11 per cent to 12 per cent and it will likely go up more. Mortgage rates have already gone up this year by two percentage points.

Finally, we have a new situation with the reasonable proposals that we have had brought before us today by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. Therefore, we should proceed with the debate and provide some assistance to the farmers in this province.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to join in the welcome to the members of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, four of whom I met with at about noon today.

Secondly, I would like to say we will not stand in the way of this debate proceeding. I think it would be appropriate for all honourable members, on whichever side of the House, who wish to say something about agriculture to have the opportunity to do so.

I would like the opportunity to correct the record again about the kinds of things the government has done and is doing and about proposals we have advanced and proposals we are advancing at this time.

A lot of the members who will participate today have already spoken in the throne debate, the budget debate and the estimates debate. It is not as though there have not been opportunities for members to express their concerns and advance their ideas.

The member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) said there was an agreement to deal with the legislation of concern to injured workmen. I would not mind taking the time between now and when the House rises for supper at six o'clock to pass the legislation which will allow my ministry to get on with establishing the financial protection plan for grain corn producers. That is a real problem that has to be addressed.

I am not suggesting that talk is worthless, but in the limited time available to us in this session I would have preferred to ask the members opposite, "Why do we not use that time to get that legislation through so we can establish that protection fund?"

Mr. Martel: Have you even introduced it?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Yes.

Mr. McClellan: It is not on the order paper.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Yes.

Mr. McClellan: Show us on the order paper.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Bill 104 and Bill 105 on your local neighbourhood order paper. It is right there.

Mr. McClellan: Talk to your government House leader about calling it then.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the minister referring to the bills that were introduced late last week by special permission from all sides of the House, when the minister was able to rise during other business to get them before the House after he has been delaying the introduction of them since before Christmas? Are those the bills?

Mr. Speaker: I think, with all respect, we are debating --

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I think those must be the same bills.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not oral question period. We are debating a motion put forward by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson).

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: We consented to that last week. We consented to try to do them when they were printed. The government has not asked for them yet.

For this minister to get up and try to convey an impression to the farmers who are here that we are not ready to expedite passage of that bill is not factual, as he knows. He should not try to convey that impression to anybody.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Boudria: In other words, tell the truth.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have no knowledge of any agreements between any parties on anything and it is beyond my jurisdiction.

Mr. Martel: I understand that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Then let us get back to the motion.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I already indicated I am pleased to have the opportunity to hear the views of honourable members in addition to those views already expressed in the debate on the throne speech, the budget debate, estimates and elsewhere. My point was quite simply that in the limited time available to us in the remaining days of the session, I would have thought that would have been a possibility.

From comments I hear when I sit here and listen, or when I read the newspaper accounts of comments from the parties opposite, one would believe the government never does anything, never does anything right and has never had a good idea in its entire collective life. That, of course, is nonsense, and I think the farm community knows that.

Mr. McClellan: That is your trouble. You have always taken the low road and that is why you are in so much trouble.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I do not know why the members opposite have so much difficulty listening to other members. They do not mind when we sit quietly and listen to them, but when we get up, all of a sudden they have to babble like a bunch of idiots.

Mr. Renwick: You are out of order.

Mr. Martel: Is that parliamentary?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I travel around the province a great deal meeting with individual farmers and farm groups.

Mr. McClellan: Was that parliamentary or not?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Martel: Are those comments parliamentary, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: He was making an observation.

Mr. Martel: Yes, I know he was making an observation.

Mr. Speaker: I heard you make an observation as well.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I find that, speaking generally, with the --

Mr. McClellan: "Babbling idiots" is now parliamentary.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Well, if it fits, wear it with pride.

Mr. McClellan: Yes, that is fine. See how low you can get. You have only five minutes.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: In the farm community there is a clear recognition of the goals of the government's agricultural program, a clear recognition --

Mr. McClellan: See how many insults you can cull in five minutes.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Listen, I sat here and listened to you. What is wrong with you that you cannot listen to another person?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: There is a clear recognition of the goals of our programs, a good recognition of the specifics of things such as the beginning farmer assistance program, the tax credit program and others and a recognition that government simply cannot be all things to all people, that the farmers as taxpayers cannot afford to have a government that would attempt to be all things to all people, whether it be in the agricultural sector or in any other sector of the economy.

I would be pleased to participate in the debate later and to listen with interest to the ideas and the specific proposals the members opposite and on this side of the House will advance over the course of the next hour and 20 or so minutes.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Quite clearly there is unanimous consent from all parties. The only question before the House then, is shall the debate proceed?

Motion agreed to.

AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, more than 150 farmers from all parts of the province have left their land today to come to talk to all members of the Legislature, including the cabinet minister, to inform them that there has to be a greater government commitment to the agricultural industry in this province.

These farmers have left their land at probably one of the busiest times of the year. It is at this time that the hay crop is taken off, as the minister no doubt knows, and it is a crop that they have to harvest when the time is right. Judging from the day today, the time is right; yet the farmers find they had to leave that work to come here to give the minister a message.

Unfortunately, farmers have been witness to several examples of political gamesmanship in this Legislature this afternoon. It is obvious the government was trying to limit debate on this agricultural situation by delaying the vote earlier this afternoon.

Hon. Mr. Eaton: How many times have I stood here and waited for you guys to come into this House? Do not give us that.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Huron-Middlesex has the floor.

Hon. Mr. Eaton: I have waited hour after hour for you fellows to come in.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

4:40 p.m.

Mr. Riddell: The minister tried to bring in the red herring about spending our time more meaningfully in debating the financial protection program rather than carrying on with this debate this afternoon. The minister knows full well that when we did the Grain Elevator Storage Act last year, the member for Huron-Middlesex strongly suggested that funding be set up at that time under that act.

If the minister wants to go back to Hansard, he will see where I encouraged him to establish a funding program, but for some reason he has left it until now, and now he is using it as an excuse for not carrying on with this emergency debate. He just cannot get away with that.

The minister, unfortunately, has not had any practical experience in farming. I find him to be a very personable person, but I just do not feel he is qualified for this portfolio by virtue of the fact that he has had no practical experience in farming. He does not know what it is to have $250,000 tied up in a farm, which most farmers have, or $500,000 tied up in a farm, which many farmers have, or $1 million tied up in a farm, which quite a few of the farmers in this province have. He simply has no idea of the debt load these farmers have to carry to produce the high-quality, cheap food that people are blessed with in this province.

He has no idea of the trauma these farmers suffer when they have to leave the farm. I am going to mention the name of a family in my riding, and I know they would want me to mention the name. The McGregors from the Hensall area are the most respectable people one would find in any part of the province and the most respectable people one would find in the community of Hensall. They are three families that have been considered to be the most up and coming farmers of any families that one could probably name in the province.

They were forced out just last week. They did everything to hold on to that land. I have met with all three families, and I can understand the trauma. What happened to the land? It was sold through a numbered Canadian company to a nonresident foreign investor for a $100,000 difference to the price at which the McGregors offered to buy back the farm, so the two sons could carry on the business.

The minister does not understand that. He does not understand that because the banks were prepared to sell to the highest bidder, three farm families, including the father and his wife, who have been on the farm for years, are now forced out on to the road.

One has to have had some practical experience to know what these farmers are going through. These farmers have been following the advice the government has been giving them dating back to the days when Bill Stewart commissioned a study on farm income. As a result of that study, a report entitled A Challenge of Abundance was released in this Legislature. One of the recommendations in that report was that farmers should get bigger and more efficient or get out.

The programs of the government were all focused on that one recommendation. In other words, the capital grants program at that time was designed to remove fence rows, to enlarge the fields and to give farmers an opportunity to acquire more land, because they were being told by this ministry and by their banks they had to get bigger and more efficient or get out. The farmers have been following that advice, but they did not dream of the day when they would be looking at 15 per cent, 16 per cent or 21 per cent interest rates. They got caught in that period when the interest rates skyrocketed.

It is those farmers who were prepared to take the risk and borrow the money to produce the food who are now in trouble. The minister knows that 20 per cent of the farmers in this province produce 80 per cent of the food. I hope he also knows that it is the farmers within the 20 per cent who are being forced into bankruptcy.

The other provinces have recognized the crisis their farmers are in and they have done something about it. They have enriched their programs or introduced new ones to try to keep their farmers in business until such time as they can all participate in the so-called tripartite stabilization program, which I am not convinced even to this day is the panacea or the survival kit the farmers think it will be.

I was inclined to think it was more or less a program to keep the farmers in poverty, although I hope the program will be better than that. I hope that it will build in some guaranteed margins and that it will take costs of production into consideration.

That is the trouble with agriculture today. The farmers cannot name the prices for their products unless they are under a supply management program. That is the program that has saved a good many of the farmers in this province, but we do not have a supply management program for all products grown in this province.

The farmer does not name the price when a product leaves the farm gate, yet he has to pay the price that is asked for gasoline and fertilizer, and he has to pay the interest rates charged at the time. He has no say as to his input costs, but he takes whatever price the market will bear. The farmer is expected to produce high-quality food at the lowest prices one will find in any country in the world. If society expects that of the farmer, it had better be prepared to assist the farmer in producing that cheap food.

What do we have? We have one per cent of the total provincial budget devoted to the agricultural industry of this province. Our farmers are expected to live with that and still produce high-quality food for the people of Ontario.

Farm bankruptcies in Ontario increased from 64 in 1979 to 165 in 1983. For the first five months of this year, they stood at 76, up from 70 during the same period last year. I raised that matter in a question to the minister not long ago, and the minister got up and told me that farm bankruptcies were not up this year. I hope he realizes what the figures are that I have just given, and I hope he checks with his statisticians.

I see my time is up. I wish I had the whole afternoon to speak on this. The minister has to start acting as the advocate of the farmer, going to his cabinet colleagues and saying: "The farming industry is in trouble. We need emergency assistance. Get on with the job and let us keep the agricultural industry in this province viable."

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I am obviously pleased to take part in this debate. I regret that we do not have more time because of the hour or so used up by the tactics of the Liberal Party. I do not think that was intentional from the beginning, but we did lose an hour of a very important debate as a result of the challenge to the ruling of the Speaker. This is perhaps a bit more --

Mr. Sweeney: It was the member's leader who introduced the question.

Mr. Boudria: Who introduced the topic in this House?

Mr. Swart: It was not we who called for the vote.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) will return to the debate.

4:50 p.m.

Mr. Swart: It was not my leader who challenged the chair.

This agricultural issue deserves to be debated at length in this Legislature because this Conservative government has simply refused over the last two or three years to move like other provincial governments have in this nation. As a result, our farmers are at a real disadvantage compared to the farmers in other provinces.

The minister can shake his head, but if he looks at the facts, he will know that is right. The Conservative back-benchers recognize this. That is why the minister received no applause when he got up today to defend his government's policy, nor when he finished his speech. They recognize the disadvantage to which the farmers are put in this jurisdiction.

I do not know why the minister refused, or perhaps I do. I do not know whether it is because --

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: We heard points of order earlier today from members on that side of the House. Anything said on this side of the House with which they did not agree was a point of order. That was reason to get up. That was reason to object. We sit here and listen to garbage time after time.

I would like to correct the record about what the honourable member has indicated. He said no honourable member applauded the minister when he got up and no members applauded when he sat down. I applauded. I was proud to do so on both occasions, and I would like to correct the record.

The Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order. The member for Welland-Thorold will continue.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I feel the member should withdraw the comment that this debate is garbage. This is a serious debate; it is not garbage.

The Deputy Speaker: Neither of those was a point of order. The member for Welland-Thorold has the floor.

Mr. Swart: May I continue?

Mr. Harris: To correct the record, Mr. Speaker. I did not say --

The Deputy Speaker: It was not a point of order.

Mr. Harris: I think it is a point of privilege. I said on a point of privilege.

The Deputy Speaker: It is not a point of privilege.

Mr. Harris: The member stood up and attributed a statement to me that I did not make.

The Deputy Speaker: I get the point. I have the drift of it very clearly, but I can tell you it is not a point of privilege.

Mr. Swart: For the fourth time perhaps, I would just like to say I am not sure why the Minister of Agriculture and Food fails to move in support of the farmers of this province. I am not sure whether it is because political philosophy ties him so closely to the marketplace that he will not move on stabilization programs. I am not sure whether it is because he thinks he has the bulk of the farmers in his political bag and therefore it does not matter whether he does anything for them, or whether it is because he is prepared to see the average farmer go under. I wonder whether the latter is part of it.

I have a newspaper clipping from the Kitchener-Waterloo Record of January 14, 1984, in which Mr. David Little, the ministry's central Ontario specialist, made these comments: "Some of the most efficient, productive and hardest-working farmers are in trouble. It is a fact of life. The average farmer is going out of business."

Is it because the minister is prepared to see that happen that he has not taken any action as the other provinces have done? The record certainly proves he has not assisted the farmers of this province to the degree they have been assisted in other provincial jurisdictions.

It has already been pointed out that over the last three years the percentage of farmers going bankrupt here is far higher than the average for this nation. Last year, even though according to the census we only have 26 per cent of the country's farmers, 34 per cent of the farm bankruptcies took place in Ontario. The likelihood is that the percentage would have been much higher if it had not been for the action of the farm survivalists. Whether we like it or not, they have made it very embarrassing for banks and other financial institutions to foreclose. I know of dozens of instances where the banks have renegotiated with the farmer rather than run the risk of being embarrassed to that degree.

Bankruptcies are far higher here, and the defaults in payments to the Farm Credit Corp., which are another indication of the financial situation of farmers, are much higher here. In fact, at the start of this year 18.6 per cent of all Ontario farmers were in default on payments of their FCC loans as against 18 per cent for Canada. That had gone up from 17 per cent in 1982 and 18 per cent in 1983. The amounts are even more illuminating. In 1982 they were in default for $20 million, in 1983 they were in default for $30 million and in January 1984 the defaults were $40 million. Surely that is some indication even to the minister that there is a real problem out there in the farm community.

The fact is that the government does not give as high a percentage of its budget to agriculture as do governments in the other agricultural provinces of this nation. It does not matter how the minister tries to twist it, that is a fact that cannot be denied. I have the figures here for all the other provinces. For instance, Prince Edward Island gives 3.42 per cent of its budget; Quebec, 1.74 per cent; Alberta, 2.02 per cent; Saskatchewan, 2.62 per cent; and Manitoba, 1.62 per cent.

Last year, 1.16 per cent of Ontario's budget went to agriculture, and this year it is up to 1.28 per cent, to match New Brunswick, the other province which is the lowest. I do not know this year's figures; their cut may very well be up too.

The minister says he has a lot of other programs. But so do the other provinces. In Saskatchewan, farmers do not pay any property taxes on their land. The minister may say they pay only 40 per cent here, but they pay nothing out there. They have other programs too. The simple fact is that the percentage this government gives to farmers is less. That is a clear indication of the lack of priority it gives to the farming community of this province.

There is no long-term or short-term financing provided by this government except through the beginning farmer assistance program. Yet most of the other provinces in this nation have one or both types of financing for farmers. In 1981-82, Alberta provided $388 million in loans to farmers and it has continued since then. Quebec provided $347 million in loans to its farmers. Perhaps when the minister gets up, he will say how much this government has provided in loans to our farmers here.

As the minister well knows, this year's budget had nothing new. He dressed it up. It was smoke and mirrors. He compared this year's estimates with last year's actual figures to give him the 16 percent increase. He did not compare it with last year's estimates because it would not have shown that high. One of the reasons there was a 16 per cent increase was that last year the ministry spent $6 million less in loans to farmers for tile drainage than it had in its budget. This year we will find that the same sort of smoke and mirrors have been used to try to show that farmers are getting a reasonable amount of the budget of this province, but it simply will not be true.

These conditions are the reasons we went around this province last fall to meet with farmers in various locations on their home ground and find out from them what they wanted, what their feelings were and the situations they were in. I want to tell the minister the farmers who made presentations to him and all the rest of us today expressed very directly and aptly the feelings of the farmers of this province.

5 p.m.

I would like to have had time to read into the record the four proposals the Ontario Federation of Agriculture made to the minister today. All of them are reasonable and all ought to be adopted by the minister and put into effect immediately. If the minister adopted them and this House concurred, he still would not be giving any more to the farmers as a percentage of the budget than the average province in this nation. The minister should be ashamed of the way he is treating the farmers of this province.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the way we serve the agricultural community in this province and I am even more proud of the agricultural community itself. I have been very disappointed in the speeches I have heard so far, because I was genuinely hoping that in this debate, unlike debates we have had before on agriculture, I would hear from the opposite side of the House some ideas, some specific proposals --

Mr. Swart: The minister has quite a task force proposal.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: What is wrong with asking the opposition to put on the record today what it would like us to do? I am quite prepared to take a few minutes to recite to the members opposite and to the people present, the list of new programs begun in the Ministry of Agriculture and Food since I became minister in February 1982.

I want to go further and speak to the farm leaders who are here today and say I believe they understand, perhaps better than the members opposite; perhaps it is because the members opposite are stuck in a mold that opposition members get stuck in. They can never say the government has a good idea. Lord forbid they would ever agree with anything we do. They can never say the government is doing enough in a given area. No, their role is to say, "Spend more." Their role is to knock everything we do.

The fact is the ladies and gentlemen who are sitting in the galleries understand the limits of government. They understand we are in a restraint period and that, notwithstanding a restraint period, we have significantly increased the government's budget for agriculture. They understand that programs such as the Ontario beginning farmer assistance program have been introduced. That is a long-range program. To date, it has helped more than 800 beginning farmers since it was introduced on September 1, 1983.

They understand the Ontario farm adjustment assistance program has been of invaluable assistance to thousands of farmers and that the program was based on a task force report. A member of that task force was the president of the federation. They understand the Ontario farm tax reduction program is benefiting most farmers in Ontario. Its base funding has been enriched this year by about 20 per cent.

They understand what we are trying to do with the red meat plan; to put the beef and sheep industries into a more productive, profitable position for the future. They understand what we are doing with respect to AgriNorth between the Ministry of Northern Affairs and our ministry to work with northern agriculture to help it realize more of its great potential.

The soil conservation and environmental protection assistance program, the greenhouse energy efficiency program, the Ontario beef financial protection program, the processing-vegetable financial protection fund, the legislation that has just been introduced to establish the grain growing protection fund, the money and the emphasis that has been put into drainage research, these are all things that have been done in my time as minister.

I am not about to stand before these good people and say we have done everything that could be done. I realize I am only human and I am probably deficient in that respect. We probably have missed something, but these people know we have been doing things for agriculture. As I go around this province, I meet with farmers. I was in Perth county a week ago Friday and met with about 600, 700, 800 farmers there at the annual pork and dairy supper. That afternoon, I was in a farmer's kitchen meeting with a dozen or so farmers, led by the former president of the federation in the county, to discuss their concerns and their ideas.

I find there is a tremendous divergence of opinions, a tremendous variety of ideas of what is appropriate. The member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) will know -- because I have seen some of the press clippings of his meetings -- there is no one way to answer the problems of agriculture. There is a tremendous diversity. I mentioned it earlier today with respect to tripartite stabilization. It is something I have been working on for a long time in co-operation with the producer organizations, the other provinces and more recently with the federal government.

I am keenly aware of how patient the farmers of this province have been. I am also keenly aware of the position of the farmers in other provinces, the other provincial governments, and what would happen if I acceded to the requests of the federation.

With all due respect to the federation, because I have a great deal of respect for it, but just once let me say that from time to time we disagree and from time to time we agree. I have never once heard the members opposite disagree. Do the members check the federation position and say, "That is our position"? Do the members not have any ideas of their own, so they never disagree with the federation and say it has gone too far or has not gone far enough?

I am in the position as minister and these people understand I have to be responsible to every individual in this province, particularly every farmer in this province. I cannot say yes to every proposal that comes along. Sometimes I have to say no, but I always explain why I am saying no. In this case, it is very simple.

The message is very clear in western Canada that if we do what is being asked -- and our own Ontario Cattlemen's Association, our own pork board and our own Ontario Sheep Association understand this -- we will lose the tripartite program, and it has taken a long time --

Mr. Riddell: That is absolute nonsense.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The member has never sat in on meetings. He does not know what he is talking about.

Mr. Riddell: That is absolute nonsense. No other provincial minister is looking at it that way. You are using it as an excuse.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I have sat with those ministers, I have sat with representatives of the Alberta Cattle Commission, I have sat with representatives of the Saskatchewan cattlemen and with the hog producers from the west. I am telling the members the message is very clear that if we acceded, that is what would happen. It means having to say no sometimes. That is part of what being a minister is all about. That is part of what responsible government is all about. The fact the members say everything we do is wrong is a part of responsible government too.

When one listens to the members opposite one would think every farm in Ontario is on the brink of bankruptcy. One would think the incidence of bankruptcy in agriculture is the highest of any sector in our economy.

Mr. Wildman: No; too many are failing, though.

Mr. Foulds: Far too many.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us keep the interjections down. Show the minister courtesy.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: It is almost as though the members think there is an acceptable level of bankruptcy. I do not. Every time I read about a bankruptcy in agriculture it hurts. I have known about the McGregor case at Hensall. That obviously hurts. But the members surely know, because they have enough common sense to understand this, there is no way I can stand here and, in all truth, say to the farming community that nobody will ever go bankrupt again. The members would not say that, would they? They would say, as I have said, "I will do everything I can, within reason, to try to ensure no one goes broke unnecessarily."

Mr. Riddell: There are 150 farmers here today. If your programs are so damned good, why are 150 farmers here today?

The Deputy Speaker: Let us keep the interjections down and let our guests hear the speech of the minister. Order.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Going back to the impression the member is trying to leave, the fact is the incidence of bankruptcy in agriculture is the lowest of any sector in our economy. One can do anything with numbers. I do not intend to get into a numbers game. The fact is that because of many of the programs we have brought in, and because of some of the programs the federal government has brought in -- I will give it credit -- we have been able to check the bankruptcies in Ontario as compared to other parts of the country.

Mr. Swart: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I know the minister will not want to mislead the House and, therefore, he will want to put on record that farmers cannot be petitioned into bankruptcy like small business or any other business in Canada. Therefore, to compare small business with farmers is totally irrelevant.

The Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order in any way, shape or form.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The fact is the incidence is the lowest. My point is that the members would have everybody believe the whole industry is going bankrupt. It is not.

Later this afternoon the members will get into some of the specifics of the programs. Some of the ones I have enumerated have been introduced in the last two years and four months since I became minister.

I want to deal for a second with the last part of the resolution because it carries on from a discussion we had in here yesterday regarding a certain company in St. Thomas.

5:10 p.m.

Do not forget that my ministry covers the whole gamut of agribusiness. Since the inception of the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program in 1971, we have approved 768 individual projects, mostly on farms, for storage and packing for a total expenditure of $12,232,000. They are all Canadians, they are all small business people, they are all farmers. That led to a further investment of $27,268,000, so that was $12.2 million out of $39.5 million.

We have put $13 million into 12 food processing projects, most of them Canadian, some of them multinational, for a total investment of $68 million.

I wanted that on the record because the last point of the member's resolution is dead wrong. I look forward to listening to my fellow members, but I wanted to put these facts on the record to show the commitment this government has to the agricultural community. It is a commitment which is very well understood and well known in the agricultural community.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate. I would like to say a few things on behalf of the people of eastern Ontario.

The agricultural economy is suffering throughout the province, but the situation is particularly severe in eastern Ontario. I see a fellow eastern Ontarian in the House, the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve). I am sure he is aware of this since he is from the same part of the province.

In 1981 there were 12,909 farms in the region, a decrease of 16 per cent from 1971. During the same period there was a decrease of 12 per cent in the province. This trend followed the 26 per cent loss of farms in eastern Ontario between 1961 and 1971.

It is interesting to note that in eastern Ontario we lost a farm every two days between 1971 and 1981. The farm acreage in eastern Ontario decreased by 13.3 per cent during those 10 years. That is double the provincial average.

In 1981, 56 per cent of eastern Ontario's farm land was improved. This figure is much lower than the 68 per cent of improved farm land in the rest of the province.

In 1981, 63 per cent of eastern Ontario was improved land compared to 75 per cent for the rest of the province. While improved farm land increased in the province by 300,986 acres between 1971 and 1981, eastern Ontario continued to lose 3,914 acres of improved land every year during the same 10-year period.

In 1971, farm investment in eastern Ontario was $725 million or an average of $47,000 per farm. This was much lower than the provincial average of $72,800. This trend has continued.

In 1981, where the investment averaged $250,000 in eastern Ontario, the provincial average was $380,000. In the same year, the value of agricultural products sold in eastern Ontario from farm land totalled $440 million or an average of $34,400 per farm. Provincially, however, the average was $57,000 per farm.

Why am I bringing up all these statistics? The reason is clear. We need programs that will assist us in eastern Ontario.

I would specifically like to talk about drainage, both tile drainage and municipal outlet drains. The tile drainage program, as it is currently set up by this province, allows loans based on a quota system. This quota system has historical antecedents. In other words, a municipality which received lots of money last year gets a proportion of that this year. This means that if a municipality always got lots, it will continue to get lots and if it always got nothing, it will continue to get nothing. This is exactly what we have been getting in eastern Ontario.

The tile drainage funds allocated by the provincial government to upgrade agricultural land averaged $1,171,700 per county for the 12 counties of eastern Ontario for the three years of 1980, 1981 and 1982. During the same three-year period, Lambton county received $10,382,900 for tile drainage. Can this inequity be imagined? One might think there are more tiles or more acreage in Lambton county than in all those places in eastern Ontario to which I referred, but it is not so. The eastern Ontario region has nearly twice the acreage, yet we got one 10th the money.

I would like to discuss the issue of municipal outlet drains. This has been a very serious problem in eastern Ontario. The minister will be aware there was an eastern Ontario development agreement between the federal and provincial governments. A subsidiary of that agreement had $10 million in it destined for agriculture. The agreement stated these funds were going to be administered to provide improved agricultural technology in Ontario. Most of the money went for tile drainage. However, the funds were administered in such a way that they were not properly encumbered at the time projects were started.

If one writes a cheque, even if it is a post-dated cheque, when he knows he has spent or is going to spend the money, he usually removes it from his bank book. That way, he always knows the money has already been encumbered or assigned to a particular project. As the government administered this project, by the time it realized it had run out of federal money it was almost $3 million in the hole.

Since then other projects have come in, to such a point that the ministry is now in a deficit position of $3,232,014 in a scheme that was supposed to cost only $10 million to start with. The federal government has agreed to reassign a little over $2 million to the agreement from other programs. The problem is that we are still faced with some 15 drains where the engineering work has been done: in my riding, in the riding of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, and in Elizabethtown, township of Montague, Wolfe Island, Amherst Island and Roxborough.

As I have said, the total cost of the projects left to be done is $3 million. I know more federal funds would be necessary to do this; however, need I remind the minister that in 1979 a similar situation happened? I am told we are supposed to learn from our mistakes; unfortunately, we do not ever seem to do so. I was reminded of that by people who were in my office earlier today.

Mr. Wildman: You guys proved that last weekend.

Mr. Boudria: I think our success rate at the federal level is pretty good and I am proud of our new leader, who is much better than the leader of the official opposition at the federal level.

Mr. Riddell: What is going to happen to Broadbent?

Mr. Boudria: Let us not get into that right now. I want to talk about agriculture.

In 1979, the Minister of Agriculture and Food at that time had the political clout to convince the Treasurer of the day to assign the funds necessary to cover the drains still to be done in eastern Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: It is just a matter of money.

5:20 p.m.

Mr. Boudria: Shall I put it this way? The minister's predecessor succeeded and he has not. If he does not want to say it is clout, maybe it is inability. Whatever it is, his predecessor succeeded in obtaining funds for the farmers of eastern Ontario in a similar situation in 1979. If the same Conservative government could manage to swing it in 1979 with a different minister, why do we have to have less in 1984 from this minister operating the same ministry under the same circumstances?

Need I remind the minister of the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program in the election of 1981? Does he know what the BILD program said about agriculture in eastern and northern Ontario? It said we should improve one million acres of land in eastern and northern Ontario.

How does allowing this to happen in eastern Ontario enable the minister to improve one million acres of agricultural land? What kind of improvement is it when a farmer in my riding who was originally assigned $2,000 to improve the Cross Creek drain will now have to pay $22,525.27, or pay a large amount for engineering fees and not get anything done?

That is unsatisfactory. The minister can do better. I urge him to do so.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to what the minister had to say. I want to say to him that any government would have a very difficult time dealing with the problem. I am not going to deny that for a moment.

I go back to my first time in politics, when I started as a federal member, and the issue of interest rates. The impact on the farm community was not a regional or a local problem; it was a national problem and it remains a national problem. I do not think any member in the House is going to deny that for a moment. We can have an argument about the cause of the high interest rates and we can have an argument about whether they were necessary or whatever. I do not want to get into that.

I want to suggest to the minister that the problem of high interest rates and the extraordinary problem of farm debt is a major problem in this province. It would be very foolish for anyone to underestimate that problem or to suggest, as one travels through Huron county, Bruce county and across this province, that it has not had a devastating effect on younger farmers and older farmers, on people who have been in the industry for a long time and on people who have been out of the industry for a time.

The major criticism I have has been constructive. Yet the minister suggests in the House that we in our party have not made practical suggestions. He must have read by now the report my colleague the member for Welland-Thorold put out in March. It has been going around the province. It is a very practical report and it is specific in terms of the recommendations we made. I am delighted to say it parallels closely the immediate recommendations that have been made by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture.

Mr. Riddell: Did the minister take the time to read it?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I would be glad to read yours.

Mr. Rae: Perhaps I could have the minister's attention because I am trying to be as straightforward as I can with the minister. We have never, as a province, as a community and as a family, experienced the interest rate crunch and the debt crunch we are experiencing today. It is unprecedented. People look at the rates today and say they are not so bad. That is nonsense. If one compares the rates to the rate of inflation, interest rates are still at a usurious high. They are climbing and causing enormous uncertainty.

The interest rate thing is a crucial issue because it has done two things. The interest rate policy of the federal government and the interest rate policy of the Reagan government in the United States are a cancer on our economy. It is a major mistake in economic policy. It is a catastrophic mistake because it has not only increased incredibly the debt load the average farmer has to pay -- and I am not going to give all the statistics because the members know them well -- but it has done something else; it has had a permanently depressing effect on prices.

We have a situation that is unprecedented since the 1930s. There is an incredible impact on the price side that has an effect not only on what farmers can charge for their products, but also on how much they are allowed to value their farms at and what kinds of prices their farms and farm lands are worth.

The interest rates obviously have an impact on cash flow and what farmers are forced to pay to the banks. In the last few years there has been an extraordinary transfer of wealth. That transfer of wealth has taken place directly from the producers of this country, whether they are small business people or farmers or whoever they happen to be, to the banks. It is documented and it is there. One does not have to be any kind of radical to recognize what has taken place. I even heard many people mention it at the Liberal convention over the weekend. Everyone recognizes it is a problem.

There has been an enormous transfer of wealth. It is time for the government of this province and our national government to recognize that there has been a redistribution of wealth away from people who are farming to people in the business of lending money. That has caused an enormous debt problem.

The minister can point to programs, and all I will say to him is that those programs are not adequate. They are based on the principle and assumption that not only the minister but many other people were working under that this interest rate problem was a temporary problem and the price uncertainty that so devastatingly affected the red meat industry was a temporary problem.

I remember when I was the federal finance critic I went to a number of meetings in Owen Sound and Collingwood where we talked to people about the Bank Act. Everyone said: "It is a question of the old cycle with beef prices. They are down now, but they will go up again." I am sure the Liberal Agriculture and Food critic is well aware, far more so than I am, through personal experiences of people saying it is just a temporary thing. That was said in 1977, and in 1978 and 1979 they said the same thing. In 1980 they said the same thing as prices plummeted, and also in 1981 as prices went down again.

I know prices have come up a little bit, but the minister knows prices are still well below what they need to be to pay for the cost of production. As long as there are farmers in the red meat industry -- frankly, I do not care what the Ontario Cattlemen's Association says or what any interest group says -- if Ontario farmers are having to produce and are getting less than it is costing them to produce, that is an injustice; it is an unfairness the government has to step in and remedy.

The government has taken the position with respect to interest rates and with respect to prices that these are basically the federal government's problem. When we raise questions on interest rates, they say it is a problem of the Farm Credit Corp.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I have said we should work on it together.

Mr. Rae: I say to the minister I listened respectfully to him.

At the same time as he says the FCC has gone down to only 25 per cent of the market in Ontario, he says that is something that gives him cause for concern. He expressed in writing that it gives him cause for concern and he issued a paper saying it gives him cause for concern. In our party, and I understand in other parties as well, people are saying if this is what is happening, the farmers in the province should not simply be left to the private market or left to short-term loans from banks that have people by the short and curlies for years on end. The government of Ontario should be stepping in -- we think through the Province of Ontario Savings Office, but we will take any vehicle it wants to name -- to ensure a long-term supply of credit.

The minister has devised two programs and wants to go after the FCC and after the agribonds. I say to the minister it is very easy to blame Ottawa, but it is a much harder thing for the provincial government to bite the bullet. We recognize that Ottawa is going to go through an election and nothing is going to happen with a stabilization program. The minister knows that perfectly well.

We heard rumours this morning that Mr. Whelan was no longer the minister. They were confirmed, then denied. Whatever the truth, it is a time of tremendous uncertainty. We know that. When it comes to the problems of interest rates and prices, the message from our party and the message from the group we met with today is very clear, namely, that Ontario has to do something. No one is pretending Ontario can do everything but it has to address those two problems.

If the minister reflects on what he said and what the government has done, I do not think the farming family today, which is experiencing a debt crunch and a price crunch such as it has never seen before, is getting the assistance from the government of Ontario it deserves. That is really what it is all about.

Perhaps the minister's programs would be good enough for an industry living in a time of tremendous prosperity and tremendous certainty. When those things are not true, when consumer confidence is down, when there is a great deal of uncertainty about what the demand is going to be, when other jurisdictions are doing things, when the United States has an incredible program that has been going for the last year and a half, the payment in kind program, which has had such an effect on prices and such an uncertain effect on other prices and other commodities, I simply say to the minister for the government of Ontario to carry on business as usual is just not good enough.

5:30 p.m.

Any government -- provincial or federal, I do not care which -- must recognize the crisis in interest rates and must recognize the crisis among farmers who are producing and getting less than it is costing them to produce. Those are problems the government simply has to address. Until it does address them, we are going to continue to be critical of the government and we are going to continue to propose some positive solutions.

We have put them forward. The minister knows they are going to cost money. I would agree with others who have spoken here that we have to make a basic choice. Either we recognize the validity of the family farm, the importance of allowing people to produce, the importance of younger people being able to look at farming as an occupation with pride in the future and as a community we make this investment in that industry; or we just say, "It is going to be survival of the fittest. A few big guys will do well. The foreign producers will come in and we will have agribusiness gone crazy."

That is the choice we face. Unless the government changes course, we are going to be looking at a very different industry in the next decade from the one that has made the province the proud place to be that it is today.

Mr. Riddell: Even your former deputy said the Ontario government should consider the establishment of a long-term credit program.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Order.

Mr. Riddell: Duncan Allan. Remember Duncan?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: You agree with everything he said, of course.

Mr. Riddell: I think he had a far better grasp than you do.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. You are cutting into another member's time, if nothing else.

Hon. Mr. Eaton: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate today in this debate.

I want to start by congratulating the Ontario Federation of Agriculture for the approach they made to all members of the Legislature with their proposal. I had the opportunity to discuss with three people in my office the proposal that was put forth. I think there are some excellent ideas there. They are certainly worthy of further consideration and perhaps some action in some areas.

In the discussions that took place with the persons who were in my office, we covered a broad range of topics in agriculture, not just the particular resolution that was there. I think we do recognize there are problems in some sectors of agriculture and that the government has made a number of moves to try to assist in those areas. But there is one particular thing the leader of the third party said that touched me and which is something I think I have to make a few remarks about, and that is the fact that some of the low prices are an injustice and the government should do something about them.

I have worked on behalf of agricultural producers in this province for 25 years. I include my time in this Legislature because I think I have always spoken on behalf of the producers. I worked for the federation of agriculture for five years and I do not think that through that period of time we came forth very often and said the government had to do something about the prices. Certainly, we asked for programs that would assist in increasing production and we also asked for some programs that would assist in marketing products.

In our discussions today we talked about those segments that were in trouble and those segments that were getting by reasonably well right now. I can think back to the years I worked with the federation of agriculture when we went out and worked and promoted four or five marketing boards that gave them some control over what the price was and how much of the product was produced. I think we have to look at that a little further and perhaps the federation has to show some leadership again in that area.

I know we have disagreement among producers in the beef industry and the hog industry on whether or not we should be going into marketing boards that control production and set prices, but I think we have to look at helping ourselves a bit. If one looks at those areas that are doing reasonably well and have been able to span the gap over the years, they are the ones in which producers direct their own destiny as to what they produce and the price they get for those products. That legislation came about through this government.

One can look at a number of those programs and one can look at what our minister has just done in the beef industry in setting up a commission to make some proposals on marketing. Perhaps it will not go as far as saying we should have a marketing board to control the production of beef, but surely it will take some steps forward in marketing. Surely our producers and the Ontario Federation of Agriculture should be supporting and promoting that.

The number of programs brought forth in other provinces has been mentioned. Let us look at the hog situation in Quebec today. In that province, more producers who were put in by lucrative government programs in the last four or five years are going bankrupt. That production also helped to hurt us as hog producers in this province. We took a responsible approach in deciding whether we should be financially supporting that kind of production when there were many producers finding ways to get funds and then getting into difficulty. We have to be a little careful in how far we go in bailing out some of them.

There are producers with pretty good equity in their operations who have been hurt in the past period. They have seen some of that equity disappear, and I can see that damn close to home. At the same time, we had some pretty good years in hog production before that. If one had been in for a while, one would have been in on both of those times. It was the ones who jumped in when they thought they had seen a good thing who got themselves in some difficulties. We, as producers ourselves, and the farm organizations, have to look at that carefully and be prepared to take some action.

We can compare our budgets for the agricultural community with those of other provinces and we can see what percentage of the population in a province depends on agriculture for its living. Comparing those proportionately, Ontario is doing better than the other provinces in supporting its industry. One has to be careful in drawing those comparisons.

We talk about farm bankruptcies and the great increase of 147 per cent, but we are talking about 65 to 165. In Quebec they have gone up more than 100 per cent in the first four months of this year, with all their assistance programs, and we have gone up nine per cent.

A member made a remark about tile drainage and how much went into Lambton county. That is because the producers there were doing it. No producer in eastern Ontario was denied money for it. Any request the minister got for funds in eastern Ontario was met. Any requests that came in during the past year, the year before or the year before that were met.

Mr. Boudria: What kind of ridiculous nonsense is that? There are all kinds of people in here who know the opposite of what the minister is saying. Their drainage was delayed for years. I am surprised the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry does not throw a tomato at the minister for that kind of nonsense.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Boudria: The minister should know better than that. People stayed on waiting lists for years when I was on municipal council, trying to get some money out of that stingy government. We never could get it. The minister should be ashamed of himself. Why does he not tell the truth?

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member will control himself.

Hon. Mr. Eaton: I also want to make reference to the last part of the Liberal motion about the lack of adequate provincial government financial support for the Canadian food processing industries. The two members who supported that live very close to one of the industries we supported, Strathroy Foods. It has meant more than 3,600 acres of processing crops grown in that area this year. It has meant 100 more jobs in the processing plants in that area. This is a completely Canadian-owned processing company with Board of Industrial Leadership and Development assistance.

It is irresponsible to try to single out one instance, as has been done down in the other area where they did not get a grant, and say we are not supporting the Canadian food processing industry. The minister went over the figures.

5:40 p.m.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: It is not parliamentary to say we are being misled in this House, but I have heard both the member for Middlesex (Mr. Eaton) and the Minister of Agriculture and Food talk about the tremendous assistance given to the processing plants. Then one picks up a news article, "Processors Pinched," that says, "Sixteen Ontario processing companies have closed in the last 10 years, 12 of them tomato-processing businesses that could not survive competition from subsidized imports from Europe." The government talks about the great work it is doing for processing plants and here are 16 of them that have gone under.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member has made a point, but it is not a point of order.

Hon. Mr. Eaton: If the member wants to talk about imports, he knows where the responsibility for stopping imports rests. We have had to support the industries in our province with BILD money so they could compete with imports. The member's federal colleagues could do something about some of those imports.

I want to conclude by quoting someone who said he supported the estimate that about 90 per cent of farmers will make it through tough financial times and he believes those who do not are poor managers. That was said by the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell). I do not believe the ones who do not make it are all poor managers, and I think we have tried to help those who are good managers. Some of the good managers who have been helped through the Ontario farm adjustment assistance program when they were in tough financial shape have made it. We have given that kind of support and we will try to give it again where it does the most good to agriculture.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The members of the government party would have to be naive if they did not think some of the problems farmers have today result from mismanagement.

The Acting Speaker: I thank the member, but there are other ways of making your point. The member for Grey (Mr. McKessock) has the floor.

Mr. Riddell: The farmers are just as upset. There is nothing wrong with that news article.

The Acting Speaker: The time is allocated carefully and fairly. The member for Grey has the floor, so would you give him your attention?

Mr. McKessock: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate members of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture for coming in here today and giving us the opportunity to discuss agriculture again in this forum. Probably if they had not been here, the emergency debate resolution would not have passed. So I appreciate their being here. I think they have presented to the minister and the government a very easy solution to some of the problems. The presentation they made is not lengthy, and I would like to read the start of it:

"In its truest sense, Ontario agriculture is a primary industry. It provides employment for hundreds of thousands of Ontario residents through the many different businesses associated with the agricultural food sector, injects billions of dollars every year into the provincial economy and helps support our affluent society by providing food at reasonable prices."

I often feel the only way we can get through to the government the importance of agriculture is to point out that it does provide other jobs in our society. In fact, one out of every five jobs in Ontario is related to agriculture. Perhaps one way to give agriculture the importance it deserves is by realizing it does create jobs besides those of the farmers.

As one moves down the page, one notices it says, "When you think of an apple, don't think computer." I think this is often the case in today's society. Too often food is not given much thought because we have so much of it. We are so well fed that it is hard for the person in an urban situation to see that there really is a problem in the rural area.

They see all this food around them and they do not realize the day might come when it could quickly disappear if the number of bankruptcies continues. Of course, food will not disappear, because it will come in from other countries and provinces. We will never go hungry, but we will lose our agricultural industry in Ontario.

As the member for Huron-Middlesex pointed out, the farmers have always been the ones who were prepared to take risks. This is true, they have taken risks over the years with ups and downs, but the risks have finally become overbearing for Ontario farmers.

The member for Welland-Thorold mentioned the small amount, one percent of the budget, that the government gives to farmers. I want to point out to the minister that the farmers do not get this. This one per cent of the budget goes to administer the ministry. The farmers get practically nothing.

Mr. Watson: Practically nothing.

Mr. McKessock: Practically nothing is what the farmers get.

As I mentioned in question period today, I have had farmers calling me quite a bit lately to say their sons cannot get started in farming because of the programs we have in Ontario. Young farmers themselves call me and say: "What do you have for me? How can I get into farming?"

When we look at the beginning farmer assistance program with its five years, it is so out of date. Actually it was out of date before it came in. When I started farming, I could get a 25-year or 30-year mortgage, I believe it was, through the Ontario government, and then there was farm credit through 29 years at four and six per cent interest. That was good for farmers like me starting up in those days. It gave one an insight into the future. One knew if he took on that mortgage he was going to be able to make the payments and he felt a little secure. It was a stabilizing factor in starting in agriculture.

There is nothing stabilizing about the beginning farmer assistance program the minister has come out with. What happens at the end of five years? If the interest rate at that time is 15 per cent and the farmer drops off the five per cent subsidy, he goes bankrupt. He is left with a mortgage at 15 per cent, or it could be more. The minister is leaving him in a desperate situation.

The minister mentioned that bankruptcies were down. I hope so, because they could not continue at the rate they were going. Naturally the bankruptcies should be down, but I have the feeling sometimes that with his program he is really trying to keep up the momentum. I feel the minister is putting these farmers in a boat and shoving them out to sea without a paddle or compass.

The minister asked us to give him proposals. The Ontario Federation of Agriculture and the farmers have been giving him proposals and programs for the last two years. He has not paid much attention and there has been little worthwhile action.

When one looks at the programs the OFA has put before him today, right off the top is the emergency assistance for the red meat producers. "The OFA recommends a $64.4-million emergency payout to the red meat producers, excluding payment for the sow-weaners. This payout would be based on 1983 production levels. When a stabilization plan is introduced, this payout would bring Ontario red meat producers up to the level of producers in other provinces."

5:50 p.m.

The minister keeps asking for solutions and proposals. This has been asked for now for about two years and it has not come in yet. I wonder how Saskatchewan keeps the minister from doing this. It must be playing on his lack of knowledge of the industry or something. I do not know how that province continues to keep on bringing in new programs and there is nothing said about its programs jeopardizing the stabilization plan, but the minister says that if he does anything it is going to jeopardize the plan.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Our red meat plan is new as well, the same as Saskatchewan's.

Mr. McKessock: It is new but it is not meaningful.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: We cannot always be wrong.

Mr. Foulds: No, but you are close.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. McKessock: It is not right that our farmers here in Ontario have to feed cattle for Quebec and Saskatchewan to make a living. If it were not for the programs in these other provinces, I suppose you could say we would be in worse shape. But can we not look after ourselves here?

I sat in at the Wiarton sale last fall and watched the Quebec buyers buy the cattle, and our producers could not afford to. Some of the cattle that were bought by Quebec producers went straight to Ontario farms and were being fed.

Hon. Mr. Eaton: Yes, they take them into Quebec for 60 days and apply for the subsidy.

Mr. McKessock: Then they went back to Quebec to participate in their program.

Hon. Mr. Eaton: Yes; that makes a lot of sense.

Mr. Riddell: What are you knocking another province's program for?

Mr. McKessock: Yes, it sure does make a lot of sense. Why does Ontario not have enough programs so we can look after our own industry?

The United States last year gave subsidies to its farmers equivalent to $30,000 per farmer, and in the European common market they have been paying their farmers fantastically. I know they have a surplus, and the minister keeps saying, "Yes, the United States is going broke. Quebec is going broke, the European common market is going broke." But if this is the game they are going to play, then we have to get into it too if we want to preserve our industry.

The minister mentioned they are going to stop paying these subsidies. That is true, but then Ontario farmers lose anyway, because those foreign farmers have been getting these subsidies; they have their machinery, their buildings and their equipment up to date. Our farmers have never had this; so when they cut off the subsidies they will still be in a great position to go right ahead, whereas we are going to be in a depressed situation and will have trouble surviving.

They also mentioned that the eligibility criteria in the Ontario farm adjustment assistance program should be changed so that people with 70 per cent equity and less should be able to participate, and I agree with that. They also recommended that the province guarantee that producers will not pay more than the negotiated rate plus half a per cent for operating loans. The floating interest rate has been a killer for the farmer, and this would help rectify the situation.

The other thing they mentioned was a capital grants program, $50,000 over 10 years at eight per cent; that also would be a big boost for Ontario farmers.

The Acting Speaker: I thank the honourable member. His time has expired.

Mr. McKessock: I do not agree with subsidies, but if other provinces and other countries are going to play this subsidy game, we must participate or we will lose our industry.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, in the short period of time left I would like to raise some concerns that relate specifically to my area in northern Ontario and to the comments in the resolution that have not been dealt with by very many speakers today.

First, I must say that the members of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and the farmers who have been here today must be pretty frustrated at the antics that members, all of us, have demonstrated and at the squabbling among the parties when we are talking about such a major, serious problem in agriculture today.

We have heard comments about whether it is the federal government's problem, a national problem that should be dealt with by the federal government in conjunction with all the provinces, or whether this province should act. We hear a lot of talk, and we do not really deal with the real problems in the farm community.

We have heard talk here about bankruptcies and we have had comparisons between figures for bankruptcies in this province and those in other jurisdictions, but maybe it is time we started thinking about some of the people who are directly affected by those bankruptcies. For that matter, it may be time we started to think about some of the people who are affected by forced sales. They do not even get to the bankruptcy stage but are suddenly faced with a "For Sale" sign on their front gate. They are told: "This is what you have to do to meet your obligations. That is it. You have no choice."

In my own community I had a good friend whose family just recently went through this experience of forced sale. They were beef producers. Frankly, I know those people are as tired of the passing of the buck we keep hearing and seeing on this issue as are the members of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture who are here today listening to the debate.

The fact is that the red meat industry particularly is in very serious trouble. It is time we acted. It is not enough for us to continue to say it is a national problem. I do not think anyone in this Legislature debates that. It is a national problem, but it is about time we realized that we cannot continue to use that argument as a reason for not doing anything.

Farmers in our province are at a disadvantage in comparison to farmers in other jurisdictions in this country. The farmers who are in the red meat industry have made proposals. I know the minister has his commission and he is looking at new approaches to marketing in that area, but we have an emergency. That is why we have an emergency debate today. We have an emergency that requires action. It requires funding from this government.

The minister says he wants to hear proposals and suggestions. He has heard them. He has heard them from the OFA today. He has heard them from members of this Legislature over many months. Why will the minister not act on the recommendation of an emergency payout to the red meat producers? Why will he not act? It is not enough to say: "Mr. Whelan may deal with it." We do not know whether that has been said. We do not know whether Mr. Whelan is going to be there. It is certainly going to take some months for the federal government, in its new political situation, to act.

The other major commodity group in my area is the milk producers. Many people say the milk producers are in a better position than the beef producers. We have had a particular problem in our area that results partly from the concentration in the dairy industry. That concentration in our area, the monopoly situation in the processing end of that industry, has hurt both farmers and consumers.

The consumers in our area have voted with their feet in that they are travelling across the international border to purchase milk. Even with the difference in our dollar, it is cheaper because of more competition in that area. It has hurt the farmers in our area. The dairy is not selling as much milk; so it is not purchasing as much from the local producers.

Those farmers who thus face a drop in income are also facing the continuing high interest rates. They are hurt by the cost of capital, which is the major problem in agriculture today as far as I can see. Again we have had proposals made here. Today, and on many other occasions, we have made proposals for dealing with that issue. We have had the suggestion by the OFA for the expanded Ontario farm adjustment assistance program. We have had proposals for a cap on operating loans. We have also had the proposal for capital loans at lower interest rates to assist farmers to upgrade, expand and diversify their operations.

These proposals are very similar to the proposals that have been made by my friend the member for Welland-Thorold in the past. It is obvious that if we are to support the farm community and the farming industry in this province, we have to increase the percentage of the budget that is allocated to agriculture in this province.

We propose to move to at least $450 million as a budget for the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. This will be up from the estimates of this year of $335 million, which is an increase from the $295 million estimate from last year. The proposal we have made for $450 million would fund the proposals that have been put forward by the OFA. That amount of money would only bring Ontario to the average of what the provinces in this country spend on agriculture in their jurisdictions. We are not talking about moving to the top. We are being quite reasonable here. These are proposals that have been made.

The minister has made a great to-do about the BILD program. He talked about the proposals and assistance that have been provided for BILD to farmers and the processing industry. A part of the resolution deals with the question of Topaz Foods, and the example of assistance being given to Heinz, an American subsidiary for import replacement.

It is interesting that import replacement for a company such as Heinz is much easier, as an American company, as compared to a wholly Canadian owned company.

The fact is that imports have not gone down. They are maintained at similar percentage levels to those we have always had. BILD has been unsuccessful in replacing imports. This government has been unsuccessful in supporting the agriculture and food industry. It is time this government acted instead of passing the buck as has been seen for months on end.

The Acting Speaker: That concludes the debate.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.

June 19, 1984