Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

LOCAL GOVERNMENT WEEK

Mr Mahoney: As I am sure you know, Mr Speaker, since 1985 the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, in co-operation with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, has set aside a week each year to inform Ontario residents about the roles and responsibilities of local government.

Today marks the beginning of that week this year, 1991, and I would like to take this opportunity to personally congratulate, as the critic for Municipal Affairs for my party, all the men and women who work in local government, both elected officials and staff, who deliver the many good services to their community, whether it be schools, parks, recreation facilities, police protection, fire protection -- the list goes on and on.

I find it somewhat disconcerting, however, in light of this government's latest announcements and the last year, where it has given all kinds of difficulties to local government in the area of garbage and waste reduction. It is unfortunate that this government came into power with a promise for openness and yet the Premier refuses to meet with local mayors to discuss issues of grave concern.

Now, right at the beginning of this Local Government Week, the government is talking in terms of a referral on the Sunday shopping issue to the Ontario Municipal Board, which will just create havoc in local government for the residents, and of course more particularly in this case, for those men and women who have to work within local government. It is a shameful display by this government.

POLICE SERVICES

Mr J. Wilson: My statement is directed to the Solicitor General of Ontario. It involves a matter that I have raised several times publicly in this House and privately through letters and phone calls.

The issue I raise once again is the lack of 24-hour policing in areas of my riding of Simcoe West. Every time I have raised this issue, the government has hidden behind an OPP staffing report that was completed in the spring. But while the government stalls, criminals in the area have stepped up their efforts to burglarize communities that pay full tax dollars but lack 24-hour police services.

From January 1991 until the present time, the Stayner OPP detachment has reported 130 break-and-enters. Of these, 104 occurred when local OPP officers went off duty and went on call. These break-ins will cost ratepayers in my riding about $200,000. In the past 16 days, Ferris Enterprises in Singhampton has been robbed twice while OPP officers were off duty. The thieves took $23,000 worth of cigarettes and even had time to stop and have a drink of pop.

Here is a quote from an editorial in the Collingwood Enterprise-Bulletin of September 25 regarding the government's foot-dragging on this issue: "Governments are notorious for keeping people waiting. But to keep people waiting for answers when it may concern their safety and welfare is irresponsible."

This government must live up to its social obligations to the people of my riding. Law and order and the safety and security of citizens must be a top priority of this and any government.

WASTE REDUCTION WEEK

Mrs Mathyssen: I am glad to tell the House today that several communities in my riding of Middlesex are participating in Waste Reduction Week, which is sponsored by the Recycling Council of Ontario. Waste Reduction Week runs from September 29 to October 6. This week communities in my riding join the rest of the province in participating in a number of locally sponsored events being conducted to remind people of the three Rs: reduce, reuse and recycle.

One of the many events being planned is Zero Garbage Day. In the past, we have concentrated on recycling; now we must also focus our energy on reduction.

As the members can see by the T-shirt I am wearing, the theme of this year's Waste Reduction Week is "The Future Is Rs." Indeed, we can all help protect the environment by reducing the amount of waste that we generate so that it does not become a burden inherited by future generations. Mr Speaker, I am sure you will agree that the Recycling Council of Ontario and all the local participants, not only in Middlesex but throughout the province, should be commended for their hard work in arranging this week's activities.

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Mr Curling: Last week the Minister of Citizenship announced that $6.4 million would be allocated to the Ontario Human Rights Commission to eliminate the agency's 2,500-case backlog. The minister's announcement was surprising, given her previous decision to freeze the commission's funds and her statement that throwing money at the problem would not solve it. Still, as a preliminary short-term measure, this one-time injection of funds may indeed help reduce the case backlog.

Let us hope that in its zeal to deal with what had become a politically embarrassing situation, the government does not get so caught up in the statistics that it loses sight of the importance of seeing that justice is served in each individual case. It should be remembered that many of the cases in the backlog are there because of their complexity, and it is important that those assigned to deal with the backlog are not only experienced but also have a well-developed expertise with the Ontario Human Rights Code.

The minister's statement also promised a review of the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Human Rights Commission. This much-needed review should be independent and impartial. I am asking the minister and the Premier to refer the matter to an all-party committee of the Legislature to conduct public hearings and make recommendations, as has been recommended by the standing committee on government agencies.

1340

SCHOOL BREAKFAST PROGRAM

Mrs Cunningham: Mr John Snobelen, chairman of the Hunger Project, reminds us that today marks the first anniversary of the World Summit for Children. It was the largest-ever summit of heads of state, where over 100 nations promised to set down plans of action by the end of 1991 to provide the basis for the healthiest and best-educated children on this planet.

As this nation debates the latest constitutional proposal, it would be easy for us to forget that every day 40,000 children in the world die of preventable causes. Children in Canada are going hungry and suffering neglect and abuse. It is estimated that one child in six in Ontario lives in poverty.

Studies have indicated that there is a relationship between hunger and the ability of children to excel at school. Recognizing this problem, Mr Ian Sorbie came forward and, working with children, teachers and administrators, established a breakfast program for the children at Roden elementary school in Toronto. Each day, 168 children receive a nutritious breakfast at a cost of $150 a day. He feels this experience can now serve as a model that can be replicated in other schools throughout the province. Establishing a breakfast program for elementary school children in partnership with the private sector is an initiative my party supports.

Given the fact that this is the first anniversary of the World Summit for Children, I would urge the Minister of Education to begin consultation to make these kinds of breakfast programs happen in our province.

CONSERVATION

Mr Abel: Southwestern Ontario contains a wide variety of flora and fauna that are found nowhere else in Canada. This region, extending from Toronto to Grand Bend and south to Lake Erie, contains vegetation similar to that found in the southeastern United States, and has thus been termed the Carolinian life zone. Exotic trees like the flowering dogwood, sassafras, sycamore, tulip tree and black walnut are scattered among the deciduous hardwoods and conifers more typical of northeastern Canada. It is the home of some unusual species such as the Carolina wren, the flying squirrel and the opossum.

Since most of the remaining Carolinian zone is under private ownership, the key to conserving important natural areas is to ensure private stewardship. In the region of Hamilton-Wentworth, thousands of acres of land consist of part of the remaining Carolinian life zone. The reason so much of this land is preserved, not only in Hamilton-Wentworth but also in the rest of the Carolinian life zone, is largely due to the support of a very special group of people: private land owners committed to preserving the natural features of their properties.

In recognition of their contribution to sound management, I ask that all members of the Legislature join me in thanking these people for their role in protecting and preserving our natural heritage.

CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE CONFERENCE

Mr Miclash: The annual fall meeting of the Northwestern Ontario Associated Chambers of Commerce concluded this weekend in Kenora. A working conference discussed 45 resolutions and adopted 33. Resolution topics covered small business and economic development, trans-portation, land use and resource management. Gathered in Kenora for this most important conference were 70 chamber members from 14 chambers across northwestern Ontario.

As most people in the House are aware, NOACC will be meeting with cabinet to discuss its resolutions later this year. A resolution of note dealt with land use and resource management. It recommended as follows: "The Ministry of Northern Development and Mines be the lead agency in a process to review and administer the uses and disposition of crown land in northern Ontario. The process should result in a policy which is coherent, sensible, reasonable and flexible."

Upon reviewing the chamber's work, I see a good number of such resolutions that will well represent the thoughts, aspirations and needs of many of my constituents. However, during a presentation on Saturday morning, Tom Corcoran, the provincial president of the chamber, indicated that the present NDP government is not paying attention to the needs of small business in Ontario. I agree with the chamber president that this government must listen to all people, and not just those private-interest groups that put it into power.

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr B. Murdoch: As a result of a meeting with community living groups in my riding, I would like to remind the Minister of Community and Social Services of a promise she made and has obviously forgotten. On December 20 of last year, the minister made a statement to this House advising members that she would reduce the significant gap in wages paid to workers in ministry facilities compared to wages paid to workers in community agencies. This would be done, she said, because "the government is committed to providing community agencies with the resources necessary to recruit and retain quality workers."

It was a lovely speech, and it gave the agency staff in my area hope that their dedication and efforts would be rewarded. But now they are convinced that the minister had no intention of following up on her promise, as in the almost 10 months since she made this commitment, nothing has been done to change this situation. Even the Minister of Health was quoted on June 24 as saying she was horrified by the inadequacies of the two groups.

When will the Minister of Community and Social Services acknowledge her words of December 20 and take action? When will she recognize the value of community agency workers, or is this just another typical socialist broken promise?

INTERNATIONAL PLOWING MATCH

Mrs MacKinnon: September 17 to September 21 marked the culmination of three years of hard work and dedication by an army of volunteers in Lambton county. Why, members may ask. The answer, of course, is the successful 1991 International Plowing Match. This is the largest farm equipment and machinery show in North America, with its plowing competitions, displays and collection of farm-related materials and products.

My hat is off to the plowing match committees for their dedication to making this the best-organized such occasion ever held in Ontario. I realize it is dangerous to mention individual names, but I would be remiss if I overlooked Mr Leonard McNeil, who as chairman guided this event and the project to the success it was.

For the five days of the plowing match, Lambton was front and centre, along with rural Ontario, and I am proud to have had an opportunity to highlight this great part of our province in Lambton county to over 180,000 people who attended. Next year this exhibit takes place in Victoria county, which is part of the riding of one of our colleagues. I thank everyone in the Legislature who attended opening day. Their support was much appreciated.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Mrs Marland: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order under standing order 31(a). This standing order is in our rules to allow ministers an opportunity to inform all members of this House on matters of importance. The Minister of Culture and Communications has made a mockery of this standing order today.

Instead of informing the House of her actions in regard to TVOntario, a matter which was first brought to the attention of this House by myself, she instead made her announcement in the media studio. It was my assumption that on a matter of such significance to the people of this province, who have a right to know, this minister would have served the courtesy to the members of this House by making her statement in this House. This shows a lack of respect for not only the rules of this Legislature, but also for all members of this House today.

The Speaker: To the member for Mississauga South, I appreciate her bringing this to my attention. The standing orders allow ministers the opportunity to make statements. It does not oblige them to make statements. The Speaker does not have any control over events which occur outside the chamber.

Hon Mr Cooke: Mr Speaker, I understand the ruling you just made, but I might just point out to the member that it is my recollection that the Minister of Culture and Communications last Thursday put the House on notice that the report was going to be released the following day and that it would be made available to the press and to the opposition parties. She made that statement in the House as a courtesy and out of respect to the Legislature, and I think she should be congratulated on the approach she took.

1350

Mr Elston: Following up on the point just very briefly, it seems to me the government House leader has missed the whole point of the exercise that has just occurred in the media studio. Here we have one of the top administrators of government activity in the province who has tendered his resignation and there is no explanation, no indication in this chamber of how this chief public administrator has come to fall on a resignation letter. There is a requirement, because this has made it a matter of importance to the people of the province, that a full explanation be made here in the chamber, as opposed to it being made out in a media studio.

I can understand that it was courteous of the minister to tell us that the report was about to arrive last week on a day which was outside the sitting of the House, but here the resignation has arrived on her desk prior to the opening of this sitting of the Legislature and she owes it to us to explain why there was a resignation tendered.

Interjections.

The Speaker: We are obviously relaxed and ready for question period.

I appreciate the comments that have been raised by the Leader of the Opposition and the government House leader as well as the member for Mississauga South. I think members understand the standing orders well. However, the leader seems to have raised material that may indeed be the subject of questions for question period, which is now about to begin.

Mrs Marland: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: The government House leader just stood in this House and said that the minister had said in this House on Thursday that she would release the auditor's report on TVOntario the next day. In fact, her statement to this House was that she would release the auditor's statement when she was assured through the commissioner of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act that there was no risk to anyone by the release of that report.

The Speaker: Would the member take her seat, and with everyone's co-operation, we can begin question period.

ORAL QUESTIONS BUDGET

Mr Elston: By bits and pieces, we will gradually get this story filled in.

Perhaps what I could do is go back to my favourite minister, the Treasurer of the province, who by his own admission has been spot on. Last week he told us that his revenue projections are spot on, that he intends to keep his reckless deficit of $9.7 billion spot on, and he identified two culprits for us as being responsible for part of his overspending. He mentioned pensions and he also mentioned one other which escapes me -- firefighting, I guess, in the north -- as being out from what they had expected.

Since we have heard on the weekend through press reports that it is not hundreds of millions of dollars but probably over a billion dollars that he intends to cut from the over $9.7-billion expenditure level, can the Treasurer identify for us other problem areas of spending?

Hon Mr Laughren: I was interrupted at the very end of the --

Mr Elston: What other spending areas are getting him into trouble, welfare?

Hon Mr Laughren: First of all, I would not want to get into speculation on what was written in the tabloids over the weekend. However, I would simply say that what I said to the leader of the official opposition last week was that the actuarial shortfall in the pension plans was causing us heartburn, if you will, that there was an excess in spending on firefighting, that our social service case load was higher than we thought it was going to be, and finally, that there is an open-endedness to our health care system, as the member opposite knows better than most, I believe.

When you add up all the expenditure pressures, they do indeed come to several hundred million dollars, which is the reason, I think, that the leader of the official opposition would want me to state before all members of the House in more detail just what those pressures are, and I intend to do that on Wednesday.

Mr Elston: I wonder if the Treasurer can confirm to us that in fact he has a certain series of guiding principles which he is using to establish the cuts. Having confirmed that there are those principles there, will he enumerate those principles before he makes his statement on Wednesday?

Hon Mr Laughren: I am not too sure what the leader of the official opposition is fishing for. However, I do know that I am not going for the bait. I should tell the leader of the official opposition that we are concerned that we do not simply take a meat axe to the constraint program in which we find ourselves. We want to do it in keeping with the priorities of the government, because I think to do otherwise would be simply to mimic what has been done in other jurisdictions, and that is not our intention.

Mr Elston: All I asked the Treasurer to do was tell us exactly what series of parameters he was going to be viewing as he looked at the restraint exercise his government is going through. He has so far refused to tell us, first of all, the size of the problem, which he says he is going to tackle on Wednesday. He will not confirm that number to us. He will not tell us what parameters he is using to view the cuts and he is not letting us know the areas in which there are problems. If he is looking for help from us, he must share the problems with us and he is not doing that.

Having admitted that the budget he cast in April has been abandoned by himself and his colleagues, will this Treasurer tell us now what new types of goals he has established for the financial planning and expenditure controls in the province?

Hon Mr Laughren: I am pleased the leader opposite wants to share the burden, because we would like very much to share it with him. There has been no alteration in the principles under which we intend to govern this province. That has not changed from the budget that was brought down earlier in the spring. We intend to pursue those sets of principles.

I would say to the leader, however, that we thought at the time, and I still believe, there was not put in place the kind of mechanism that would allow government to look at the entire reallocation process in order to establish priorities, in particular for a new government, but for any government. I think that the leader opposite would agree with me, in view of the fact that his government had great difficulty in doing any kind of accurate forecasting, as is evidenced by the deficit last year.

Mr Elston: I will not agree with the honourable Treasurer on that point. We delivered a balanced budget the year before last. They took over and they did wonderful things with our budget last year, in addition to everything else. But let me return to the Treasurer.

One of the primary focuses of the budget, as indicated in April when it was delivered by the Treasurer, was that it was to stimulate the economic activity in the province, and one of the keystones of that was a whole of series of capital works. I wonder, after having looked at the $9.7-billion deficit that was forecast then, and now being told that he is not satisfied he can maintain that without taking some sort of actions, if he can tell us how many capital works in the public highways programs, including the four-laning of Highway 69, he has shelved.

Hon Mr Laughren: I assume the member opposite is talking about the anti-recession package. He did not quite say that. We are going to be doing an update on that for all members, as a matter of fact, because the last time I checked, I believe about 85% of the entire anti-recession package had either been completed, started or was about to start. That is of the total $700-million package. I think it would be contradictory for us to start cutting back on the capital expenditure program, especially as was detailed in the anti-recession package, at a time when we are trying to stimulate employment in the province. It is our intention not to slash capital expenditures in the province. I think that would not be wise at this time.

1400

Mr Elston: Having now heard that there will not be any capital programs cut during the speech which will come on Wednesday, as soon as the Treasurer gets his instructions from the Minister of Health -- Health ministers usually do tell Treasurers lots of things during the planning for economic expenditures -- can I be absolutely assured that the statement the Treasurer just made here that no capital programs will be cut as part of his cost-cutting exercise will in fact be delivered upon?

Hon Mr Laughren: To be fair, I think what I said to the member opposite was that I did not believe slashing capital programs under the anti-recession package was the right direction to go. I am not going to stand in my place and say that in that entire some $4 billion in capital expenditures every single one of them will be completed according to the schedule we had hoped for this year. That is yet to be determined, so I am not going to allow the member opposite to paint me into a corner. If I want to paint myself into a corner, that is one thing, but I am not going to allow the member opposite to do it.

Mr Elston: This is an interesting conversation the Treasurer and I are having. First he says, "There will be no capital cuts." Then he says, "But I don't really mean that; there might be some someplace."

Mr Speaker, can I ask the question which is quite obvious? Can the Treasurer confirm to the House that his bureaucracy, that is, Treasury, is not involved in the final program planning, that in fact it is all being handled by the treasury board, which is newly formed but without legislative capabilities, and that in fact the treasury board bureaucracy, which is newly formed but without legislative capacity, is driving this whole exercise, thus leaving the Treasurer out in the cold on exactly what principles are being applied to the restraint program, how much the dollar figure is and what areas are in jeopardy?

Hon Mr Laughren: No, the leader of the official opposition is dead wrong. First, the treasury board legislation was brought before this House and passed in June of this year, so to say that we are not operating with legislative approval is factually incorrect. Second, I chair the treasury board myself, so it is hardly leaving me out of the picture when I chair that board. Finally, there is a set of principles or terms of reference which will guide all of the restraint program as it affects all the ministries. So it is simply not correct. The member is incorrect on every one of the assertions in his question.

Mr Villeneuve: I have a very important lead question to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. I see he is not here. I know he is in Milton and is supposed to be back shortly. I will ask to stand down my lead question until the Minister of Agriculture and Food returns.

The Speaker: Is there a second lead question?

Mr Carr: I will proceed.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Carr: My question is for the Solicitor General. The Solicitor General will know that we spent the summer going around and hearing from the public on the Sunday shopping issue and that significant portions of the province have said they will be open on Sunday. Notwithstanding the Premier's commitment to have a common pause day, we heard from Windsor, Collingwood, Thunder Bay, Kenora and parts of Kingston that they will be open.

Lo and behold, we get the amendments that have come through from this government, which say, "Any person who objects to a bylaw made by the council of a municipality under section 4 may appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board." We are already looking at a backlog of between 12 to 15 months at the Ontario Municipal Board. At a time when we are talking about allocating resources, how can the minister justify to the people of this province lobbing more responsibilities on an already overburdened board?

Hon Mr Pilkey: The government is anxious to proceed to clause-by-clause so that we might deal with the bill and all its amendments and return third and final reading to this House as expeditiously as possible. Of course, I would seek members' co-operation in assuring that circumstance.

Not to belabour the topic beyond that but simply to respond to the question, under the amendments the Ontario Municipal Board will be asked to use its best efforts to try to hear appeals within 90 days so that in fact businesses that do receive the tourism exemption are not held up in an unnecessary fashion.

Mr Carr: The problem is when these boards and agencies come in. We talk about the rent review board. It sounded like a great idea when it came in, but lo and behold, it is so backlogged now it does not work and there is no justice. The fact of the matter is that if you ask anybody, all these well-intended programs that come in do not work.

Not only is the minister going to lob things into the Ontario Municipal Board, but one of the amendments he is bringing forward is that, "On the application of any interested person, the Ontario Court (General Division) may order that a retail business establishment close on a holiday." Again, talking about resources, we have a situation where in the courts now we have delays if you want to get a divorce. We have well over 35,000 cases being thrown out because it is clogged -- cases, I might add, that include sexual assault and drunk driving.

Lo and behold, what does the minister do? He throws more into an overburdened system and now we are going to be looking at a situation where resources are going to be channelled to try and deal with a problem such as Sunday shopping. Again, with the court backlogs out there, how does the minister justify putting resources into this particular program at this time?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I am anxious to debate the bill and the amendments, but as indicated, the amendments have yet to be moved in the committee. I look forward to appearing at the committee and staying with the committee to discuss any and all of these amendments in detail so that we might bring it to the House. At that appropriate juncture, I will be quite happy and pleased to do so and subsequently debate the item when the final amendments to the bill come to the House for final debate.

Mr Carr: Not only do they come in with these harebrained, crazy ideas, but they refuse to even stand up and talk about them. I can understand why. If I had brought in these crazy ideas, I would be reluctant to talk about them as well.

The minister is looking at all these different programs. He has heard from the public. Everybody on both sides of the issues from Thunder Bay to Peterborough to Ottawa said they did not like the legislation. Both sides of the issue said they did not like the piece of legislation. Now that the minister has come up with a couple of ideas and proposals, what is it going to cost the people? How much more is it going to cost as a result of these ideas that the minister is coming up with? How much is it going to cost?

Hon Mr Pilkey: As I indicated, I am anxious to debate amendments once they have in fact been placed. They must be placed before the committee in clause-by-clause. Those that are adopted will come forward to the House for open debate. I believe at that time the wisdom of the government amendments will be quite apparent to the member and to the public at large.

Mr Sorbara: The Solicitor General is entirely lacking in credibility with those answers. We simply cannot rely on them.

Hon Mr Pilkey: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I take some offence at the member saying my responses were inappropriate -- I think he used something much harsher than that. Is that permissible when the questions are --

The Speaker: If the Solicitor General would take a seat, I believe the member was questioning your credibility. Often members question each other's credibility and the validity of statements made. What would be more helpful would be if members would place questions directly to the ministers from whom they wish to have a response.

Mr Sorbara: Mr Speaker, I will take your advice on that. The point I was simply trying to make is that the Solicitor General, with respect --

The Speaker: Would the member place his question, please.

Mr Sorbara: It is difficult to believe what he says when he says what he says.

1410

My question is to the Attorney General. As members know, two weeks ago the government indefinitely postponed this Legislature's consideration of its Sunday shopping legislation. Last Friday afternoon at 3:30, when most of us were in our constituency offices and most of the press had filed their stories for the day, the Solicitor General brought out his amendments responding to one month of public hearings where most people condemned the bill to regulate Sunday shopping.

Surprisingly, the amendment which was brought forward was to allow an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board. Maybe one person asked for that during the public hearings, and that is the only amendment we have had from the government.

As my friend the member for Oakville South suggested --

The Speaker: Your question, please.

Mr Sorbara: -- there is a 13-month delay at the OMB right now. When the government passes this legislation, every storekeeper who finally gets permission to open a store on Sunday is going to have to wait some 15 to 20 months before a final determination. In this economy that business will probably no longer exist.

The Speaker: Would the member quickly place his question.

Mr Sorbara: What specific steps is the Attorney General taking with the funding of the Ontario Municipal Board? He should not look to the Solicitor General, because the OMB is the Attorney General's responsibility. What steps is he taking to provide additional resources immediately to the OMB so that a storekeeper who is the subject of an appeal from a decision by a local council can get a decision expeditiously and inexpensively in these very difficult economic times?

Hon Mr Hampton: I think it is probably most appropriate that the Solicitor General respond to the honourable member's lecture.

Hon Mr Pilkey: Could I simply respond to the question by making two points? First, the amendment will in fact expedite the situation, which is what we want to do. Second, if both the members from both opposition parties who have urged that this matter get dealt with promptly are concerned with amendments that may cause delay, I suggest to them that if they will meet me and my colleagues at 3:30 this afternoon in the clause-by-clause and co-operate, we might proceed to get this matter dealt with expeditiously and avoid any delays they are alleging.

Mr Sorbara: I am rather glad actually that the question was referred from the Attorney General, who has now abdicated his responsibilities for the OMB to the Solicitor General, because now in my supplementary I can address the question of credibility. The Solicitor General has said he is anxious to proceed with amendments to the bill. Yet the very reasonable amendments that we have put forward to make it somewhat easier for a storekeeper to get through the administrative morass he has created with this bill have already been rejected by him and his ministry and his government. There is no intention at all on his part to give reasonable consideration to the amendments we are putting forward.

The Speaker: Your supplementary.

Mr Sorbara: Although he is not responsible for the OMB, I ask him what additional resources he has requested from the government to provide to the Ontario Municipal Board and to the court system, because he has also allowed for an application to be made to the courts by an agreed individual. Will he please answer me specifically? What additional resources has he asked for for the OMB and the court system in order to handle the very significant increase in case load that will arise because of his bill and these unnecessary amendments? I want to know specifically what resources he has asked for.

Hon Mr Pilkey: The involvement of the Ontario Municipal Board will allow for sober second thought to applications of municipal bylaws for which exemptions are being requested. It is also my understanding that the Ontario Municipal Board will be able to deal on a very expeditious basis and without undue delay or concern. We simply do that in order to help expedite those businesses that are found to be appropriate to have the exemption under the tourism criteria.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Tilson: I have a question for the Minister of Financial Institutions. Recently the Toronto Star published a story that the government had spent $5 million to study the impact and cost of government-run auto insurance in this province, and this presumably resulted in the minister backing off from his promise to nationalize the auto insurance industry in Ontario. I will say that certainly I think the people of Ontario are, generally speaking, in favour of the policy the government put forward. What it has done by spending this $5 million is something our party was telling it to do long ago and which it could have done for free. My question to the minister is, what did he spend the $5 million on?

Hon Mr Charlton: The member is correct that over the course of the last 10 months we spent approximately $5 million studying the question of automobile insurance delivery in Ontario. Part of the moneys was spent looking specifically at the question of moving to public auto insurance, the transition to get there and the impact that transition would have on the province, but in addition we also studied in depth the marketplace questions around which the former Liberal government claimed to have made its product and price decisions. This government, as a result of the time, effort and money we spent coming to understand the auto insurance system in this province, is in a better position to ensure, through legislation, regulation and discussion with the insurance industry, that the consumers of this province get a product that is fair and equitable at a reasonable and affordable price.

Mr Tilson: With spending like the minister's, no wonder the Treasurer is going to have to cut several hundreds of millions of dollars. It is a complete waste.

My second question to the Minister of Financial Institutions is that while in opposition, the minister and his party were certainly in full support of full access to the courts with automobile insurance legislation. They were clearly opposed to the Liberal's no-fault auto insurance legislation, which took away full access to the courts by the public of this province.

On December 20, 1990, prior to the minister's appointment, Bill 20, An Act to amend the Insurance Act, was moved by the member for Leeds-Grenville. It passed second reading. The intention of this bill was to reinstate full access to the courts to auto accident victims, including the right to sue for full economic loss. The minister voted in support of this bill on December 20. If it were brought forward today, which way would he vote?

Hon Mr Charlton: It is nice to hear a member of the opposition stand in his place and make the case for the $5 million we have just spent, which he said was a total waste of money. The private member's bill to which he refers from last December was a bill that was brought forward based on a number of things, including the emotional perspective of the member in question. We have taken the time to understand the marketplace in this province and have done precisely what we have said from the outset that we intended to do, and that is to pursue the question of how best to deliver fair and adequate compensation to accident victims in this province and how to put the best package in place.

Interjections.

The Speaker: We seem to be straying from that which we had agreed upon earlier: a calm and reasoned approach.

1420

CHARITABLE GAMING

Mr Kormos: I first want to thank the member for St Catharines for his offer to me to take his slot in question period. As it is today, I do not need it. There may be a time in the very near future when I do. I hope I can take that as something of a rain check.

I rise today to ask a question because of my great concern. In fact, I am very troubled about the status of the Ontario Head Injury Association here in Ontario. Ray Rempel and his organization have been providing services and leadership.

My question is of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Ray Rempel and the Ontario Head Injury Association have been providing an invaluable service to people in this province for some years now. That organization, to the greatest extent, has been self-funded. The hard work of the volunteers and the people who are committed to its goals have enabled it to pay its own way. They recognize that there is going to be less and less money available from governments by way of grants.

They want the opportunity to sell break-open tickets, Nevada tickets, those modest fund-raising efforts that enable them to keep on providing the service. I want the minister to please tell us why the ministry persists in making it more difficult for the Ontario Head Injury Association to sell those tickets, rather than making it easier.

Hon Ms Churley: I am sure the member knows from his experience with the ministry that it is a little more complicated than that. I have met with the organization he mentioned, as well as many other organizations. I certainly understand their concerns and this government and I are very pleased about the contribution they are making. But as the member knows, there are thousands of organizations attempting to raise charitable funds by using break-open tickets for very worthwhile causes. That is why this venue has to be very carefully managed to ensure a level playing field for everybody. The new gaming services act will address the over 50,000 organizations that are trying to raise money through this venue.

Mr Kormos: With great respect to the member, I happen to recall the minister's briefing note on this issue, and it is not thousands; it is a relatively modest number of organizations, including the Ontario Head Injury Association, the Canadian National Institute for the Blind and the Variety Club. These are responsible people who want an opportunity to legally and legitimately raise money to carry on the service they have been providing. The fact is that the Ontario Head Injury Association is deeply in debt and risks literal foreclosure, and the fact is that if it is not there to provide that service, the government is clearly not in a position to fill the gap or fill the vacuum that is created.

When will the minister act, and I say promptly, to make sure the Ontario Head Injury Association can carry on with the fund-raising it has traditionally conducted, without the frustration being encountered from the ministry?

Hon Ms Churley: The updated regulatory framework will deal with this problem, as I said in my previous answer. The problem is that there are many organizations. There is a problem with oversaturation of the market. There are many more charitable organizations out there having the same problems and competing for fewer dollars. The reality is that we have to be fair. I refuse to deal with this piecemeal, because if we make a regulation to deal specifically with break-open tickets, we are going to create another problem for somebody else over here who is doing just as valuable work raising money through other charitable means. That is why I want to deal with the whole issue in one big piece of legislation, so that everybody is playing on a level playing field.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Phillips: My question follows along the questions my leader was asking of the Treasurer. As the Treasurer knows, in any presentations we have had, and I certainly think in his budget, there are four key economic indicators that the Treasury officials use: the unemployment level, the CPI or inflation rate, job creation and gross domestic product development.

Based on my analysis, at least, of those four key indicators, all of the four things seem to be performing better than the budget called for. The unemployment rate appears to be running below his estimate of 10%. The CPI appears to be running somewhat lower than his estimate, albeit slightly, but none the less better. The job creation activity: I think he anticipated in the budget 184,000 fewer jobs; I think there are about 135,000 fewer jobs. His gross domestic product numbers are running somewhat better.

I think one of the components of the budget is the economy. Will the Treasurer confirm to the House that the economy year-to-date, based on the Treasury officials' estimate for the rest of the year on those four key indicators, actually is performing modestly better than he anticipated at budget time?

Hon Mr Laughren: Yes. I would stress that the operative word in the member's question, though, is "modestly." The improvement in the numbers he cites, which as I recall are virtually spot on, as the Leader of the Opposition is wont to say, is quite marginal and is not substantial enough to increase our revenues to the degree that would allow us to look after the increased expenditure pressures we are trying to cope with now.

Mr Phillips: The supplementary then follows obviously on that. The economy is performing slightly better than the Treasurer thought. This is the line of questioning my leader has been pursuing. The revenue, presumably, of the economy as it is performing will be spot on, as the Treasurer expressed it. Therefore, can we assume that the budget problem is solely related to expenditures? The economy is performing well; therefore the expenditure needs relative to the economy should be spot on. Without being overly aggressive, can we assume that the out-of-control budget problems are a result of the inability of the government to control expenditures, not the economy but the inability to control expenditures?

Hon Mr Laughren: The member opposite uses an unfortunate series of words to spin together his question, which contrary to his views I find quite aggressive. I think the member opposite should understand, first of all, that he is right in the sense that it is the expenditure problems we are coping with. But to say they are out of control is not fair when the very actions we are taking are to ensure they do not get out of control.

It is not unusual that we have these in-year pressures. Any large organization has them. Other governments have had them as well. We are trying to be more open with the Legislature and with the people of the province by saying what those problems are. That is why on Wednesday I intend to make a full statement to the Legislature, to make sure it is not all done behind closed doors. We really believe that we have to share information. That is not what previous governments have tended to do, and we want to change that.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr Villeneuve: I go back to the lead question. It is my understanding the Premier will not be here, nor will the Minister of Agriculture and Food, so in their absence I will go to the Treasurer, the Deputy Premier, the man with the purse-strings.

The Treasurer is well aware that the crop crisis in Ontario is at its worst in many years. From Huron to Essex to Brant-Haldimand and throughout eastern Ontario, farmers are suffering very much. This major problem is being discussed today in this Legislature on opposition day and also in the standing committee on resources development.

The Treasurer has had money for many things, but he has not had very much for agriculture: a 3.2% increase in this year's budget over last year, compared to many larger increases in many other ministries. This is a basic industry in deep trouble. They are not crying wolf for nothing. He should have looked. He should have been there. He would have gotten experience. If he visits Essex county any time, he will see the drought. Let him visit the Niagara Peninsula. When will this government bring on some real assistance for our farmers, who are really suffering now?

Hon Mr Laughren: I appreciate the views of the member opposite. I know he shares our concern about the problems in the agricultural community, and he does not exaggerate them one little bit. I want to assure the member as well that the Minister of Agriculture and Food will be here for the debate on agriculture this afternoon, but he simply could not get back in time for question period.

I agree with the member opposite, and I would just ask him to be patient for a very short period of time and the Minister of Agriculture and Food will have a statement to make.

1430

Mr Villeneuve: I appreciate that, and I heard in some of the news broadcasts this morning that the minister does have some sort of emergency assistance. However, there is an emergency across Ontario. Certain areas of Ontario have been hit with a double whammy. I speak of Essex and parts of Kent county, where indeed they have had a drought this year. They have had either a flood or a drought for the last three out of four years. That is not a usual situation, but that is the situation this year.

Will the Treasurer provide them with some additional assistance? Indeed the crop prices are down throughout Ontario, we know that, but that area has been hit by a double whammy. Will the Treasurer be using crop insurance? Crop insurance, as he knows, does not work when you get three bad years out of four, so will they who are in dire straits be getting something supplementary to the rest of the province?

Hon Mr Laughren: I know the member for S-D-G & East Grenville appreciates the fact that the problems in the agricultural community are not just in Ontario but are elsewhere as well. I can assure the member that the Minister of Agriculture and Food has been most aggressive on this issue in fighting for his constituents, the farmers of this province. I do not want to pre-empt what he will have to say, but I can assure the member that he is very much aware and will be making a statement which will contain some assistance.

Mr Villeneuve: Before the Minister of Agriculture and Food makes his statement for whatever the surprise, whether it is good or bad, I want to remind the Treasurer that de Havilland, for example, is receiving $151 million now and maybe another $150 million for 4,900 jobs. Those people are Canadian Auto Workers; for some reason they seem to have priority. Elliot Lake, $250 million for 650 jobs. We are not opposed to this; we are putting it in context of one of the very major industries in this province. Auto insurance: as was spoken of today, $5 million thrown away. Civil service increase in salary: $512 million in 12 months, almost the entire budget of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. TVOntario. We could go on.

The Treasurer had dollars for all of those. We are looking for real support for one of the very basic industries in this province that provides, directly and indirectly, 20% of the jobs in the province. The Treasurer should remember that. What assistance, in light of what I have just said, will the Treasurer provide agriculture?

Hon Mr Laughren: I appreciate the views of the member, but I regret that he persists and other members of his caucus persist in playing one group of people who find themselves in unfortunate circumstances against another. I was, however, pleased to hear the member say that he supported the fact that this government provided assistance for people in Elliot Lake and Sault Ste Marie and Kapuskasing, and trying to do things in a more creative way rather than simply throwing money where there is a problem.

Mr Villeneuve: They have a union.

Hon Mr Laughren: If the member opposite is saying that if working people happen to belong to a union they should not get any assistance, let him stand in his place and say that. Let him stand and say that. The member is trying to have it both ways. He stands on his feet one minute and criticizes the fact that people who happen to belong to a union get assistance, then the next minute he stands and he says he is glad they got that assistance. I wish the member would get his story straight once and for all.

TVONTARIO

Mrs Marland: My question is to the Minister of Culture and Communications. In the minister's own words, in the statement which she chose not to share with this House today and gave in the media studio earlier at 1 o'clock, she said, "It is evident from the report that there have been excesses that are unacceptable to this government and to the people of this province."

Why has the minister agreed to allow Mr Ostry, the person who must ultimately take responsibility for these excesses, to stay on as chairman and CEO until after a conference on public broadcasting at the end of November? In my opinion, it is inappropriate that a person who has compromised public confidence in TVOntario be allowed to represent TVOntario at that conference.

I ask the minister, why is she allowing Mr Ostry to stay in his position as chairman and CEO until December 15?

Hon Mrs Haslam: Mr Ostry offered his resignation to me. I accepted his resignation, effective December 15. This allows TVO a time of transition, it allows Mr Ostry to attend a very important conference, and it allows time for us to find a replacement for him.

Mrs Marland: The minister has said also, in this same statement, "I will be requiring the vice-chair to report to me monthly about these matters." She was referring to expenses and human resources actions. The minister obviously has already bypassed the chairman, the same chairman she is going to continue to pay for two and a half months at $110,000 per year. I simply ask her, if she has already bypassed him by asking the vice-chair to report to her, then why would she continue to pay the chairman for another two and a half months? Why would she simply not appoint the vice-chair as acting chair in the meantime?

Hon Mrs Haslam: I can only reiterate that Mr Ostry did offer me his resignation, that it is effective on December 15. There were reasons which I have originally stated for leaving Mr Ostry in the position while we put a process in to replace him.

TAXATION

Ms Harrington: My question is also to the Treasurer. This morning on the 8:30 CBC news, I was quite surprised to hear a statement on behalf of the Greater Toronto Home Builders Association in which it claims that our government plans to impose a capital gains tax on people's principal residences. These Toronto home builders also claim that this was somehow buried in our Ministry of Housing discussion paper entitled A Framework for Ontario.

I need to know, does the government in fact plan to impose a capital gains tax on principal residences?

Hon Mr Laughren: I was surprised when I saw that in one of the Toronto tabloids as well, because I do not know where that story came from. But when I saw it, I went back and checked. I do not want to tease the bears over there, but I want to quote from a document I have heard them quote from time to time. This is what it says, "New democrats would deter real estate speculators by introducing a speculation tax on property that is not a principal residence." That was our position when the Agenda for People was written and it still is today.

Ms Harrington: With regard to the tax situation in Ontario, I understand the Fair Tax Commission is looking into all aspects of taxation, including this type of situation. When would the tax commission be reporting to this House?

Hon Mr Laughren: I get questions about the Fair Tax Commission from all over Ontario, so I appreciate the question from the member for Niagara Falls. I have asked the Fair Tax Commission to come back to me on any number of tax questions during the next three years. However, we are not waiting until the end of three years to take action on some of the tax measures. Two of the tax measures we asked them to fast-track and report to me on, hopefully this year, are the corporate minimum tax and the land speculation tax, which was the tax implied in the member's question. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify that matter for the member.

1440

ONTARIO HYDRO RATES

Mr Conway: My question is to the Minister of Energy. Bill 118, An Act to amend the Power Corporation Act, contains within it a dramatic departure from Hydro policy as we have known it in Ontario for the past number of years. The dramatic departure I want to focus on today is the directive power. The bill introduced by the NDP provides for a cabinet, an executive council, to issue any kind of directive, that the directive must be acted upon by the Hydro board and any costs associated with that directive, irrespective of whether that directive has anything to do with the generation or distribution of electrical power, must be passed on to the electrical consumers.

Can the Minister of Energy explain to the hydro consumers of Ontario exactly what the rationale is for so dramatic a departure and for so sweeping a directive power as that which is contained in Bill 118?

Hon Mr Ferguson: Members of the House ought to know we are not breaking new ground here, this is not new ground being dug by this particular government. What the members opposite ought to look at is the legislation that their federal counterparts put in place to establish Petro-Canada as a crown corporation. What we are proposing here is absolutely no different than what their Liberal counterpart friends did in Ottawa in establishing Petro-Canada.

Mr Conway: I have read the Financial Administration Act of Canada and I have also read the Power Corporation Act, as it has been and as the minister wishes to amend it. I can assure the honourable member that what he has just said does not square with reality either in Ottawa or in Ontario.

I repeat: I ask the minister, on behalf of the new government, to explain how this kind of sweeping, unfettered directive power -- which has no legislative oversight, I might add, something quite noticeably lacking in the bill -- accords with any kind of principle of accountability. Hydro ratepayers across the province want to know why they should pay the kinds of costs that this kind of directive power might impose upon them.

Hon Mr Ferguson: The purpose of the amendments to the act is very clear. It is going to strengthen the relationship between this government and Hydro in the future, as well as future governments. The main goal and objective and purpose of the amendments is not only to strengthen this relationship but to ensure, unlike in the past where Hydro very often used the back door in dealing with the government of Ontario, that in the future they will be using the front door in dealing with the government of Ontario.

LAND REGISTRATION

Mr Arnott: My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. It concerns her plan to close the Arthur land registry office later this week, an office which has been serving the people of Wellington county for well over 100 years, and incidentally which is located less than 200 yards from the house where I grew up.

Opponents of this office closure have filed an application with the Ontario Court (General Division) seeking a declaration from the court that the minister's decision to close the registry office is invalid. My question is this: Since this matter is now before the Ontario Court, will the minister await the court's findings before closing the Arthur land registry office?

Hon Ms Churley: I have certainly heard about the review that has been asked for. I would just like to point out today once again that this was a cabinet decision made some time ago, and that there was --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I imagine the member for Wellington would like to hear the response. He is unable to do so because of a number of his colleagues. Would the minister conclude.

Hon Ms Churley: The decision was a difficult one. An in-depth analysis was made, and as I pointed out before, we are saving the taxpayers of Ontario $1 million a year plus $8 million in capital costs. I might also point out that in most parts of Ontario there is one land registry office per county, in the county seat, and that is what we are doing here. In Arthur the plans are still in place to close that office.

Mr Arnott: That reply only underlines the minister's utter disregard for those concerned about this issue, which borders on contempt. Last week the minister showed blatant arrogance by refusing to acknowledge the importance of the work of the standing committee on general government, which held hearings on the registry office issue last July -- incidentally, not one presenter to that committee indicated support for the minister's decision -- by refusing to delay the closures until the committee makes its recommendations. Today she is saying that the courts in Ontario do not matter either.

How can the minister justify her contempt for the work of her colleagues on a standing committee of this Legislature, and now her total disregard for fairness and the court process in Ontario?

Hon Ms Churley: I do not think anything I said today or on other occasions would in any way indicate that I have contempt for rural areas of Ontario or the court system. As I pointed out before in a question a couple of days ago, although I was unable to attend the standing committee hearings because I was not informed of the date until after plans were made, I did --

Mr B. Murdoch: You were not informed?

The Speaker: Order, the member for Grey. Has the minister concluded her remarks?

Hon Ms Churley: I did indeed pay careful attention to the comments that were made to the standing committee. I have reviewed again the entire situation and upon the review, I have still come to the same conclusions, for at this time in Ontario it is important to rationalize this system for the taxpayers of Ontario.

CONSUMER PROTECTION

Mr G. Wilson: My question is also to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I am sure the minister will agree that the marketplace is much more complex than it used to be. I have heard from some of my constituents, and I am sure this is an experience common to many of the members here, that they are often intimidated by the legal jargon they find on contracts for things as simple as cable TV or even renting a car. I wonder if the minister can tell the House what is being done to make sure that our constituents know what they are signing and what responsibilities they are undertaking.

Hon Ms Churley: As the member knows, my ministry is preparing a new consumer code to replace the earlier consumer legislation. A key element of that new consumer code is to require that all consumer contracts be written in plain, clear language, and that is to help the vulnerable consumer, to make sure that people are aware of the implications of what they are signing. I may add that the new code itself will be written in plain language.

1450

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr Cleary: The Minister of Agriculture and Food indicated last week that he will soon be making an announcement of additional assistance for Ontario farmers. The minister is aware that the net income stabilization account program would provide assistance to livestock, fruit and vegetable farmers who are not covered under the gross revenue insurance plan program. The minister knows that the payment under the NISA program could be made quickly this fall. The minister also knows that provincial funding of NISA this year would automatically trigger additional federal funding under the terms of the program. Why will the minister not reverse his government's refusal to fund NISA this year as part of his fall farm assistance package?

Hon Mr Buchanan: NISA would address some of the concerns across the farm community. There are other pro-grams and there are other concerns that need to be addressed. We hope to be able to address all those concerns, not simply the NISA program but some of the other major issues as well in the farm community, and we will make an announcement on that very soon.

Mr Cleary: If the minister does not agree with the opposition arguments, perhaps he could talk to the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. The federation is holding a meeting here in the Macdonald Block at Queen's Park on October 16 in order to pressure the Premier and the minister to finally meet face to face on crisis issues affecting agriculture. Will the minister make a commitment today that he and his Premier will meet with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture to hear the concerns of farmers about the province's lack of commitment to the agricultural industry?

Hon Mr Buchanan: I would like the member to know that I have met with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture from many counties. We met with the county groups. I would also like the member to know that just as recently as noon, I met with the president of the OFA to talk about the farm crisis, along with people from Essex county as well to talk about the drought situation in the province. We have had meetings and discussions with the president of the OFA and we will continue to have ongoing consultations as we look at addressing some of the serious concerns.

ONTARIO STUDENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Mrs Cunningham: I have a question -- it is going to be two questions, but I will ask in a different way -- for the Minister of Colleges and Universities.

I was encouraged when the minister's government announced last April that he would undertake a comprehensive review of the Ontario student assistance program. His April 23, 1991, news release stated that the review would be completed by August 1991 so that the changes could be implemented for the 1992-93 academic year.

Last Wednesday I met with Laurie Kingston, the chair of the Ontario Federation of Students. She expressed her concern that the timing of the minister's announcement on changes to OSAP has slowed significantly and gave me a copy of a letter from his deputy minister, Dr Bernard Shapiro, stated that the minister will now be accepting submissions until October 15, 1991. When will the minister convene the final meeting of the general advisory committee on OSAP and what is his new time line for completion of the review?

Hon Mr Allen: There is no revised time line. We did in fact complete all the review portion in terms of the steering committee's work. All the information we gathered in that review was put together into a document which then, of course, was fed out again to the community and the universities to respond to. We have a deadline of October 15 for that feedback, and shortly after that date we will be calling the steering committee into place to review the proposals that will be coming from the ministry in response to what we have heard back from the review and the proposals that were contained in it.

BUDGET

Mr Elston: Mr Speaker, on a point of privilege: If I may rise and correct the record, I had suggested that the treasury board bill had not been passed. I was corrected by the Treasurer. I wish to apologize for suggesting otherwise. It received third reading on June 24, 1991, and has been proclaimed. In fact, royal assent was done in June and in August the royal proclamation. The people in treasury board do have full range in this cutting exercise and the fact that the Treasury bureaucrats are excluded is a problem the Treasurer will have to deal with.

PETITIONS ST JAMES ROMAN CATHOLIC SCHOOL

Mr Carr: I am pleased to table a petition signed by approximately 1,000 concerned residents of Oakville which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas St James Roman Catholic School has a 35-year history of extensive service to the Oakville community and St James has provided quality education and a focus for the development of numerous communities, particularly of new Canadians,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly as follows:

"For the urgent personal attention of the Minister of Education to provide significant improvement to our vital community school, St James, through the allocation of $1.9 million for an addition/renovation."

RESIDENTS' ALLOWANCES

Mr Cooper: I have a petition presented to me by 102 residents of Sunnyside Home in Kitchener. It is to the Parliament of Ontario, Queen's Park, Toronto:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Residents in homes for the aged receive a comfort allowance each month of $112. Out of this amount, residents must purchase a number of items and services both discretionary and non-discretionary. Residents must purchase their own eyeglasses, clothes, shoes and toiletries. Residents must pay for their own dental care including dentures. Residents must pay for all their hair appointments. Also out of this amount residents may purchase cigarettes, alcohol, gifts for families, transportation, ie taxi charges, telephones, cable TV, and if anything is left over, entertainment.

"There has not been an increase in this amount for at least six years, not since 1985.

"Through this petition we hope to let the Ontario government know we need an increase. If we received 5% per year for the last six years we would now be receiving $150.09 per month. We feel that our comfort allowance must be increased to $150 per month retroactive to January 1991 and we must receive a cost-of-living increase each year following."

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr Elston: I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas grain and oilseed farmers in the province of Ontario are experiencing the most severe shortage of cash flow in the history of the industry;

"Whereas the government of Ontario has failed to pro-vide sufficient cash-flow assistance to farmers during the transition from old ad hoc programs to new safety-net programs in order that they may meet their financial obligations;

"I/We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the government of Ontario provide an immediate 1% contribution to NISA -- net income stabilization account -- for Ontario producers and waive the one third producer premium deduction with the Ontario grain stabilization program and take other necessary measures to ensure the survival of the family farm in Ontario."

This is signed by some 1,500 people from Ontario, and I have affixed my name to the petition.

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

Mr J. Wilson: I am privileged to rise today and present a petition to the Legislature of Ontario. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the Queen of Canada has long been a symbol of national unity for Canadians from all walks of life and from all ethnic backgrounds;

"Whereas the people of Canada are currently facing a constitutional crisis which could potentially result in the breakup of the federation and are in need of unifying symbols;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to restore the oath to the Queen for Ontario's police officers."

That is signed by some 100 residents of my riding of Simcoe West, from Wasaga Beach, Collingwood and New Lowell.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr Carr: I am pleased to table a petition signed by the residents of the Oakville and Burlington area which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to ensure that our elected officials work to preserve and protect the environment of Ontario for the future of the children of our province."

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ARMENIAN COMMUNITY CENTRE OF CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1991

Mr Farnan moved first reading of Bill Pr68, An Act respecting the Armenian Community Centre of Cambridge.

Motion agreed to.

1500

ORDERS OF THE DAY

OPPOSITION DAY: FARM INCOME

Mr Villeneuve: On behalf of the member for Nipissing and in his absence, may I have agreement of the House to move this motion on opposition day special debate?

Agreed to.

Mr Villeneuve: Thank you. This is a most important debate.

Mr Villeneuve moved, on behalf of Mr Harris, opposition day motion 1:

That this House, having witnessed the serious deterioration of crop prices through 1991, particularly in grains and oilseeds, and realizing that the new federal-provincial support programs are not in place for the 1990-91 crop year, further realizing that the Ontario government has refused to participate in the NISA program this year, and recognizing that Ontario farmers require the same commitment from their provincial government as farmers across Canada receive from their provincial governments to create a more level playing field, observing that consultations with farm groups have not yielded necessary emergency aid, and recognizing that drought conditions in southwestern Ontario have compounded an already desperate farm income situation, and also recognizing that Ontario agriculture has been neglected as a priority by the government, calls upon the Premier and cabinet to participate in the NISA program for this year and to introduce further measures to give Ontario producers at least the same protection for 1990-91 that they will have under the new safety net programs, in order to meet the commitment made by agriculture ministers at their meeting in Regina in March 1991.

The Speaker: Does the member have opening comments?

Mr Villeneuve: I also ask the indulgence of this House to have not only the opening remarks but also the wrapup remarks, as if the motion were my own.

Agreed to.

Mr Villeneuve: This is a rather sad day to be debating a situation that has been coming to the fore for quite a number of weeks and indeed months. The writing has been on the wall regarding --

Mrs Mathyssen: Years. Ten long years.

Mr Villeneuve: The opposition parties are saying, "Ten long years." I have been in this Legislature for seven years and have never seen the prices we have now. I can tell the members opposite that when we consider inflation and cost of input, farmers at this particular time are getting a price 30% lower than in the Dirty Thirties, the Depression time. Opposition members can say 10 long years all they want. Never has agriculture been hit as hard as in the last 12 months, 30% below the Dirty Thirties' prices when adjusted. They can say 10 long years all they want and try to pass on the responsibility which is now theirs but, whether they want it or not, it is now theirs.

As I mentioned in my lead question to the Treasurer, in the absence of the Premier and of the Minister of Agriculture and Food, this government seemed to have many millions of dollars for what it perceived as its agenda. Indeed, when they were fighting this election campaign last year they made promises, particularly in southwestern Ontario, and we did get many elected MPPs from the rural parts of southwestern Ontario.

I hope the members have read some of the letters to the editor in the last edition of Farm and Country. There is an eye-opener there for them. As time goes on I will quote a few just to make sure of reminding them they are the government and that they promised agriculture they would be different from the Liberals and the Tories. They were going to be looking after the problems of the farmers, the basic industry of Ontario, but a 3.2% increase in the budget is certainly not looking after the farming community very well.

I will just quote a little bit here from an editorial by John Phillips, someone everyone reads in the rural community. "Where's Bob Rae When He's Needed?" That is the question. That is the headline. The initial statement says, "When inflation is taken into account, grain and oilseed prices run 30% below those of the Dirty Thirties." Those are not my statements. Those are accurate statements from a very respected farm writer, John Phillips. The members opposite can say 10 years all they like. They can try to dump the responsibility, but it is their baby. They are in the driver's seat; they have the levers of power.

I am pleased to see the Minister of Agriculture and Food back from Milton. I knew he was in Milton today and was hoping he would be back in sufficient time to answer the question. The Treasurer provided a reply. It was not an answer. He was effectively looking for the minister. He said the minister had a great deal of clout at the cabinet table. We are waiting to see from the minister's announcement this week just how much clout he does have.

These are tough times for agriculture. I will quote a little more. Hugh Zimmer, another highly respected farm writer, stated today, "we have Premier Bob Rae dodging the issue of giving extra aid to income-strapped farmers. So there's no help for farmers, but he finds millions of dollars for civil servant pay increases."

For the record, Ottawa gave Queen's Park a rebate on Ontario's share of the 1991 gross revenue insurance plan contributions. So what did our NDP government do? They pocketed the money rather than adequately funding the net income stabilization account, NISA, which should go hand in hand with the GRIP program. The Minister of Agriculture and Food knows that. I just wonder how many people who sit with him on those benches know that.

Farmers are not crying wolf for nothing. The Ontario Farm Debt Review Board case load will likely increase by 33% this year and we have already had a large number of farmers in financial trouble having to go to the board to attempt to negotiate some sort of settlement. We are not looking for across-the-board write-offs; we are simply looking at an opportunity to make financial ends meet.

It is rather sad that the minister did not come to Lucknow several weeks ago. I had the occasion to be there with one of my colleagues and we had one of the minister's parliamentary assistants there, the local member for Huron, and we had the Leader of the Opposition there that night. But 1,000-plus farmers of several generations, people in their mid-50s, expressed the same situation, the same problem. They are just looking over their shoulders and wondering whether they will be able to put in a crop next year.

We are not looking at a sector of the population that is not productive; we are looking at a sector that spends money when it produces and spends money when it has income. They have a ripple effect, a multiplier effect, of about seven within the community they represent.

I had occasion to visit Leamington last Wednesday. We have a desperate situation down there. Those farmers were hit with a double whammy. Not only did we have a major reduction in the price of their commodity, but we had a major drought to compound the problem. Many of these people who contract to some of the tomato processers were not even able to meet 50% of their contract, which normally would have been easily met and had a surplus. The grain corn was being harvested at about 30 bushels to the acre. In Essex county you can expect an average of 130 bushels to the acre, so what do you do? There it was and they were harvesting it. They had no choice. It is the same thing with the soybean crop and whatever else they are growing.

This is a major catastrophe. Not only will we see farmers go down, but we will see entire communities go down unless this government is prepared to help. It is not like putting money in the hands of other sectors. I speak of many ministries. With other sectors the money does not have the multiplier effect it has, and traditionally has had, in agriculture in rural Ontario. I say to the minister that we must address this very serious situation and it must be addressed shortly.

1510

Farmers at Lucknow said that on October 1, which is tomorrow, they would nail the mailbox shut and let nothing in and nothing out. What does that do for those very proud farm families and to the community at large? It is nothing but very negative. As the Treasurer deliberates and has deliberated, and if he has the power he said he had today, I hope he will be able to come up with an across-the-board package to cover not only the below-depression prices of grain and oilseeds, but also those hit with the double whammy of drought.

I also had occasion to visit the tender fruit-growing area of Niagara. Our peach growers had 40% less tonnage this year and 25% fewer dollars per ton. That is a pretty serious situation. They are not making ends meet, yet we did not see great reductions in the produce they produced to the consuming public. During the summer's very disastrous drought and low crop prices we have had very little recognition, leave alone support, from the government. The government sat back and did very little for the Niagara area farmers as they submitted reports and waited for some help.

Farm leaders united in July to declare a state of emergency in Ontario agriculture, an unprecedented declaration, a state of emergency, something never seen before in Ontario. Conditions now are in many ways worse than they were at any time. I can recall the early 1980s when we had very high interest rates. I personally paid 22% and I am sure many people in this Legislature and our farmers out there paid the 20%-plus interest. However, we had commodity prices that were reasonably good. We were faced with grain corn at $140 to $160 a ton. That was reasonable. With a little careful management you were able to manipulate. But now we have a situation where tipping a ton of garbage would cost almost double what you can get for a ton of barley, oats or grain corn. It actually makes no sense at all, yet we have the ministry, in the name of farmers and agriculture, spending big dollars to protect farm land. I agree with protecting farm land, but first of all we have to protect the people who own it and try to make a living from it.

My colleagues and our leader have seen at first hand the major problems facing agriculture. We regularly hear from producers and the message is no different. The message is: "We're in trouble. We're prepared to go to Queen's Park. We're prepared to go to Parliament Hill 10,000, 20,000, 30,000 strong if need be, because we've got second-, third-, and fourth-generation farms going down the financial pipe." It is very sad. This is a proud group of individuals and right now they are on their knees, and not because they want to.

Government has followed policies which give more to everyone else, but agriculture is left behind because we do not seem to have many people on the government benches who understand the real problem out there. I go back again to the Treasurer's statement today that the Minister of Agriculture and Food has a great deal of power at the cabinet table. We are watching and the minister should come out with all horses pulling.

The other new announcements have been of national support programs. There has been nothing this government has done for farmers that can be seen as major strictly made-in-Ontario plans for farmers. I live in an area along the Ontario-Quebec border and it is very difficult for me to explain to my grain producers in Lancaster township, in Lochiel township, in Glengarry and Stormont or wherever that their colleagues across the line in Quebec are getting $180 for every metric ton of corn they sell, and yet we have to settle right now for less than $100.

We look at the so-called agriculture task force of the Ontario Round Table on Environment and Economy. That is an interesting one. The task force is chaired by a Toronto politician. The NDP originally decided to exclude any farmers from membership on this task force. Then, when they could not support that position any longer, they decided to refuse suggestions from the Ontario farm organizations for nominees.

They have had one public consultation, a $30-a-head breakfast meeting in downtown Toronto. They visited some Ontario farms, but in two days of visits, do members know what they visited? Each and every farm they visited was a so-called organic farm, right to the parliamentary assistants; I gather they were there. Does that send a signal or a message out to Ontario agriculture? We are waiting for the answer.

North America and even the western world could not be fed from organic farming. The idea may sound really good to some of our consumers. The reality is that it would be very difficult to feed ourselves, let alone provide exports.

They have already prepared their final report. Even though some task force members have not seen it, it is out there. This report calls for higher taxes on inputs in order to finance the government's participation in the NISA program. The ignorance and inhumanity towards farm families shown by the government task force is, for lack of a better word, an insult to rural Ontario and to our farmers.

The government promised at least $150 million and possibly up to $300 million for de Havilland. In dealing with depressed crop prices, Ontario farm families have seen about $124 million. I remind the minister that we have 60,000-plus farm families out there, a lot of people who contribute to the economy and to the communities they live in. They are very proud people. How can the minister equate the little bit of assistance they are getting compared to some of the ones I have outlined?

Last week in the standing committee on resources development, the honourable minister, who is here today, explained that the federal offer to help with NISA participation came too close to the Treasurer's budget, so Ontario did not participate. It is a rather poor reason, that the Treasurer's schedule has a higher priority than the needs of 60,000-plus farm families across the province.

Ontario is lagging far behind in helping its farm families, yet Ontario is Canada's largest agricultural producing province. Look at the price that eastern Ontario corn producers are receiving as compared to Quebec. That will tell members exactly where this government's priorities are.

Essex county, as I mentioned, had a very major drought problem -- I know the minister is listening, I know he was down there -- and we even have some of them here today.

Interjection.

Mr Villeneuve: What did the Minister of Transportation say?

Hon Mr Pouliot: Of course he is listening and he is concerned.

Mr Villeneuve: Thank you. I am glad to see that the Minister of Transportation is also concerned, because I know the Minister of Agriculture and Food did meet these people earlier today, and they had an excellent presentation. These are not figures that were pulled out of the air. These are facts and figures from commodity groups and they will hold water, so to speak, in spite of the fact that they were short of water in Essex county this year.

The ethanol industry has to be looked at. I know the minister and I have worked on that and have discussed it many times. Now is the time; the time has never been more opportune. We have had occasion to look at some of the background papers from his ministry and it certainly seems it is coming on to the front burner. Let's not hold it back; let's get it out there. It will provide additional markets for grains. It will clean the environment. It will provide jobs. It is win, win, win.

I will not touch on the disposal of dead animals for long. There is a major problem across Ontario with our livestock producers right now: No one is picking dead animals up. The minister knows that. We have discussed that on numerous occasions. We are still waiting for further direction.

In summation, Ontario's agricultural crisis is being discussed throughout rural Ontario and within the hallowed halls of Queen's Park, and indeed in this very Legislature today. Now is the time for action. Tomorrow will be too late. The line is now drawn in the dirt.

1520

Hon Mr Buchanan: First, let me say that I think it is appropriate that we are discussing agriculture here today. I accept the member's analysis that agriculture is in difficulty and requires some assistance, and the government intends to act upon that.

I do want to inform the member and all members that agriculture is going to be a key sector in this government's economic renewal strategy. The government members recently had a retreat. We talked about economic renewal, and it is important for everyone to realize that agriculture will be part of that renewal. In fact, in his opening statement last Monday, the Premier discussed the fact that rural communities and agriculture had to be an important component of economic renewal.

A strong provincial economy depends on a very healthy agricultural and rural economy. The production of food is a very basic activity and requires assistance if the marketplace is not going to provide the necessary money for farmers to continue in production.

I believe, in spite of what the member suggests, that the serious difficulties facing farmers are well known, certainly by the members on this side of the House: the low commodity prices, the low yields, the surplus grain stores, the severe drought, the effects of free trade and the fact that government support programs do leave some gaps from time to time. This affects many producers. Even the fruit growers down in the Niagara region, as the member mentioned, have been affected by the cheap fruit that was dumped into Canada. The grains and oilseeds producers, as the members says, are suffering from very low prices. Some of this is being skewed by international trade policies.

I want the member to know, though, that I did tour the province this summer. In fact, I visited over 25 different counties and districts in July, August and September, in all regions of the province, to get a handle on what the situation was in agriculture. I have seen the drought at first hand. I have listened to the plight of farmers and farm families in their homes, in their kitchens and in meetings across the province. My parliamentary assistants have also been touring the province and meeting with farm groups, and have a good handle on what the problems are out there.

I should also note that my colleagues who form the rural caucus are well aware of the situation and certainly have been keeping me informed and promoting within caucus the importance of agriculture for this government.

In light of all that, and having assessed what the difficulties are, I do intend to make an announcement some time this week which will address the pressures and the concerns of agriculture and the rural communities across this province. We will continue to work with farm leaders and organizations in order to put together a package which we hope will address all of the concerns in the farm community.

We realize there is a serious cash-flow problem, and that needs to be addressed. It is not just drought. It is not just grains and oilseeds. It is a severe cash-flow problem that needs to be addressed in the best way possible. There are some payments that are going to be flowing in the near future that have already been announced. Crop insurance is expected to put about $60 million out to producers across the province. For grains and oilseeds, we managed to negotiate with the federal government to get an interim GRIP payment of about $93 million. Producers say that is 1992 money and they need some assistance for the 1990-91 crop. I accept that challenge and intend to address that, but I did want to note for everyone that this interim GRIP payment will flow $93 million this fall.

In terms of a made-in-Ontario program, I would like to point out the farm interest assistance program. We put $50 million out that has been well received across the province by families who are in serious need.

I want to clear up some misconceptions, however, about Ontario's participation in the NISA program. We are participating in 1992. We want to take advantage of the long-term benefits of NISA for farmers. The NISA program will allow farmers to contribute to the program in good years to cover the bad years. This was intended to be a long-term safety net program. NISA, in my estimation, is not going to solve the short-term cash-flow problems.

The federal government is making an attempt. They modified their program, which I guess is a good gesture, but they gave me 48 hours in which to respond on whether I could be in. I was unable to make that decision in that time frame, and the budget was about two weeks away when the program was modified and put to me. I want everyone to understand that there is a reason we are not in NISA. The only province that is in at this time is Saskatchewan, which had announced it would participate in the program before the federal government modified the program. None of the other provinces is participating.

I do not think it would be fair if the federal government unilaterally decided to use the NISA program as a delivery mechanism for short-term assistance. NISA is not an appropriate third-line defence program. I hope the federal government will flow the funds as quickly as it is promising, but I am not too reassured by what I have seen. The application forms are out now. They are substantial in size and in length; in fact, many farmers are going to have to pay substantial amounts to have the NISA program application filled out. I am not too optimistic that this program will deliver the kind of assistance all of us want.

We have made a commitment to participate next year -- we announced that earlier -- and will allow farmers to get whatever support the federal government can get out this year.

I welcome this debate and opportunity to set the record straight on what this government has done and what we are willing to do, and announce our commitments and continued concern for agriculture and the rural community. I hope that all parties and political and farm leaders can work together for the good of the people and the economy in agriculture in rural Ontario.

Mr Elston: I was interested in this debate coming today because I wanted to hear from the members of the government party. I am not so much interested, I guess, in what is said on this side of the House, because there have been certain commitments made both by us and the third party with respect to trying to move this issue along.

I am concerned, however, that the Minister of Agriculture and Food has just indicated that he is going to come forward later in this week with something that will address "all of the concerns" that seem to be afflicting the agricultural community at the moment. I am concerned because it leaves some kind of misconception, I think, about how well this government is going to be able to address the things that ail the agricultural community.

I would be the first to say that there are many complex issues over which this minister does not have full and single jurisdiction. However, having said that for him to come into the House and say that he is going to have an announcement which will touch on "all" the concerns seems to me to be leading people to be too much impressed by what they should hear from this minister later in the week. In fact, Mr Speaker, you might have had the Minister of Agriculture and Food saying "a few" of the concerns of the agricultural community, because there are, in fact, far too many for him to manage the way he ought to.

The other thing I wanted to make an observation about was the fact that the minister has made what is probably going to be read as a political statement. When is the minister going to play the part that he plays so well and make a statement that comes clean and clear to the people who are in the agricultural community? He was, I think, first sold to the agricultural community not so much as a politician but as a people person. He has converted himself quite quickly away from what he originally told the people he was, and that was a man of the people.

1530

He has to stop giving these political speeches that are written for him by somebody else, conceived by somebody else -- somebody else who shelters him from going face to face into meetings with men and women who are suffering the experiences which he knows about from handwritten reports but not so much close up, on a personal basis.

Interjection.

Mr Elston: The member for Lake Nipigon always likes to interject, because they never let him talk over there. They have hidden him away somewhere. He never has the ability to stand and get the floor because his party has prevented him, in fact "stifled" him, in the words of a TV character popular in my earlier days. I must say that I suspect the member for Lake Nipigon is going through some kind of conniptions right now as he and his buddies cut and slash at some of the programs which he himself must hold dear.

Back to the subject matter: The Minister of Agriculture and Food knows he has to do better. He knows he has to be the person who comes face to face with the men and women in the agricultural communities who can help him shape the policies and the programs that are needed to give them relief. He has to get away from these political speeches, he has to get away from his political handlers and he has to do the groundwork. He has to work at making sure the contacts are real and that he is not spirited away by some of his handlers, the names of whom of course are well known in the communities. Even some of them are well known to me, because I used to run against some of them in other elections.

I would hope that when we have this announcement later in the week he can deal with all of the concerns. I know he cannot. What he has to do is create real expectations of actually performing the tasks he sets for himself. In other words, he has to live within reality and his government's fiscal management and he cannot lead people to believe that the impossible will be delivered to them at the end of this week. If he can do that and get away from his political handlers, he will have done an amazing amount of good work for the farm communities, because then they know they have somebody with whom they can become a real partner. I have been spending a fair bit of my time in the communities telling them that this minister is that sort of individual, but he has to do it and he got to make up his mind that he will do the work that he himself knows he has to do personally.

Mr J. Wilson: I am very pleased to join the discussion today regarding the farm income crisis in Ontario, and I applaud the efforts by my colleague and leader, the member for Nipissing, for tabling this motion for emergency debate.

This opposition day motion highlights the enormous difficulties faced by farmers in this province with regard to making ends meet. The member for Nipissing's motion also serves to demonstrate both our party's commitment to agriculture and the failure of the NDP government to respond to the current crisis. But most important, the opposition day motion brought forward by the leader of the Ontario PC Party also sheds light on a tremendous tragedy that is currently unfolding. In a nutshell, this tragedy pits the farmers of Ontario against insurmountable odds in the face of an Ontario government that is extremely apathetic.

In August, when I met with Mr John Morrison and Mr Paul Wardlaw of my riding, and more recently with Mr Joe Keresturi and a group of farmers in the riding of Brant-Haldimand, I saw at first hand the human element that is very much a part of this tragedy.

Unfortunately, these honest, hardworking farmers are cast in the role of victims within this tragedy. There was a time when working the land and gathering the harvest was one of the most noble and distinguished professions. We appreciated farmers because they provided something we could not live without, that is, food on our tables. But today, when the farmers need us most, some people, and some people in this Legislature, are prepared to turn their backs on them and let them fend for themselves.

The members in my caucus have not forgotten farmers, and we are not prepared to forsake the invaluable contribution they make to the quality of our lives and to the sustainability of our society.

When I met with Mr Morrison and Mr Wardlaw and the members from Brant-Haldimand, one theme kept being repeated. Their pained looks betrayed the singular sentiment that the dream of the family farm is quickly becoming a nightmare. Farmers who are facing the worst crisis in their history are being hung out to dry by a government that pledged to bring relief to debt-ridden farmers.

Who is to blame? It is not the farmers. Ontario farmers are as efficient and as competitive as any in the world, but Ontario farmers are being asked to compete against other provinces and countries on a playing field that is profoundly tilted against them.

By now every member in this House is aware and should be aware that subsidy levels for Ontario farmers are substantially lower than in other Canadian provinces and in most other developed countries.

Here is a quote from a brief that was submitted to the Ontario Minister of Agriculture and Food. It was submitted by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the Ontario Agricultural Commodity Council, the Ontario Corn Producers, the Ontario Soybean Growers' Marketing Board and the Ontario Wheat Producers' Marketing Board: "We can compete against Ontario farmers. We cannot compete against other national and provincial or state treasuries without comparable support from our governments."

The equation is simple for this government. Either it supports Ontario farmers or it does not. Either it responds to the income crisis that has battered our farming community or it does not.

Getting back to my meeting with Mr Morrison and Mr Wardlaw of my riding, their message to me was short, sweet and uncomplicated. They called on the government of Ontario to waive the one-third reduction on 1990-91 payments under the Ontario farm income stabilization program, to provide a 1% contribution to the NISA program for Ontario crop producers for 1990 and for a modification of the floating price option under the 1991 crop insurance program for grain and oilseed producers.

It is unconscionable for this government to expect farmers to function while prices are plummeting and operating costs are escalating.

Quoting further from the brief that was submitted by the Ontario farm organizations to the Minister of Agriculture and Food: "And unless corrective action is taken immediately by governments, many of these farmers will not be around to take advantage of new safety net programs next year, or, alternatively, they will enter 1992 in such a desperate financial condition that the new programs will not prevent their ultimate demise."

My leader, the member for Nipissing, has, with this motion, called on the Ontario government to join the fight to preserve agriculture in this province. With this motion, we are urging the NDP government to assist farmers to help remedy the bitter taste left in their mouths by a litany of government betrayals: betrayals that include the $124-million shortfall in promised government support for 1990-91; betrayals such as this government's initial reluctance to join NISA and its refusal to participate in NISA this year, and the ultimate betrayal of this government that pledges to support farmers yet falls silent when the need is greatest. That need is right now, as my colleague for sand, dust, gravel and East Grenville so eloquently explained to this Legislature and to members of the government.

The facts are clear. There has been a drought in south-western Ontario. Prices for grain and oilseeds have bottomed out. Operating costs for farmers are continuing to increase, while realized net farm incomes are lagging well below that of 1989 levels. Market receipts from the sale of crops are predicted to drop by over 3%.

NISA will kick in for 1991-92, but nothing is available immediately. This government must begin to rethink its priorities. Ontario cannot exist without a viable and productive agricultural sector. Thousands of jobs and dreams are hanging on this government's decision.

I quote further from the brief by the Ontario farm organizations for the Ontario Minister of Agriculture and Food: "It is also a question of jobs" -- and the NDP government should be particularly interested and attentive to this point -- "One job in five in Ontario depends on food and farming. Are governments willing to let these value added jobs go down the drain, as well as the future of Ontario farmers?"

The ball is in the NDP government's court. I say to the Minister of Agriculture and Food that now is the time to send a positive message to the farmers of my riding and all of those ridings in Ontario. Farmers are hurting, I say to the minister, who is not in the House at the moment to hear my remarks. That is unfortunate, because you would think the Minister of Agriculture and Food would be interested in all members' comments dealing with the farm crisis, and it is extremely disappointing that he is not here.

Interjections.

Mr J. Wilson: It is absolutely pathetic. But Mr Speaker --

The Acting Speaker (Mr Farnan): Please take your seat. I think it is customary, and the member should be well aware of this, not to take notice of a member's presence or absence. We all know that all of the members, including ministers, have responsibilities, and sometimes they draw them from the House. Indeed, on another occasion the member may find that he himself has to leave the House, so I think it is advisable, for the orderly running of this assembly, that we obey that tradition and not make reference to the absence of members.

1540

Mr J. Wilson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would hope the absence of the member who was referred to is not an indication of this government's interest in agriculture. This is an emergency debate, and every member of the House should be here for something as important. None the less, I am prepared to discuss not members' absences but to stick to the facts in agriculture.

I will wind up by echoing remarks made by my colleague and our critic for Agriculture and Food that now is the time for this government to address the crisis in agriculture, to sit down, sharpen its pencils and make significant announcements, not just the pappy political announcements it is so capable of doing but significant announcements that really and truly help the farming community in our province. Farmers are starving in my riding. This government can go ahead and bail out all kinds of unionized plants, but the people who put food on our tables are the farmers in our communities. They deserve this government's support and they deserve that support now.

Mr Johnson: I am very pleased to hear that the Minister of Agriculture and Food has an announcement forthcoming. Although I am not apprised of the details of the announcement, it makes me feel somewhat better, understanding the serious conditions that are facing the farmers in this province.

I do not support the motion of the leader of the third party. I have heard some discussion of the NISA program. I understand it was brought to the Ontario government at a late time, and I also understand, and I think farmers would certainly understand, that it is not unlike a farmer going to a processor and the processor saying to the farmer, "Sign this blank contract; we'll get to the details later." That is what the federal government did to the government of Ontario, and the members opposite would most assuredly agree that is not the way governments make contracts together.

For that very reason, I cannot support this resolution. I think the minister has made it very clear that he is concerned, and indeed farming is a priority in the province. We still have a Minister of Agriculture and Food, and the minister has been around the province this summer.

We have global conditions that have made farming a very difficult occupation, I guess one might say, but we know too that the climate and the weather have not boded favourably for farmers across the province. There are indeed farmers in my riding of Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings who have suffered as a result of the drought of this summer. I was speaking this past Saturday to Elmer McFaul, who runs Town Line Farms in Wellington. He is concerned about the situation the farmers find themselves in. He certainly understands the need to meet the environmental standards required by the province, but he said it has made his farming operation somewhat more difficult. He says in time, and given the opportunity to get fair market value for his produce and given an opportunity for better conditions for growing, he will survive, and that makes me feel good.

Mr David Harrison from Harrison Foods in my riding has been in to my office. He too is concerned, and his operation, because of other reasons, may be downsized.

I understand, and it is clear now, that Cobi Foods is leaving my constituency and that has made it particularly difficult for farmers in my area. Farmers who have had horticultural crops that they would have sold to Cobi Foods unfortunately no longer have a place to sell or a place to have contracts for their produce, and because of this they find they are having difficult times at this time.

Why did Cobi move? Cobi has moved because it has been bought out. At least they have rationalized their organization, because ultimately what they want to make are profits and ultimately what they want to do is operate in a situation that profits them. What they have done is rationalize their operations. To do that and to have to do that has been largely because of global effects, global trade.

Other countries subsidize their farmers. They may not call it directly subsidizing, but nevertheless in some way they have subsidized their farmers. We have global trade to concern ourselves with. We know the value of produce such as grain and oil seeds is down markedly. On April 29, when the Treasurer brought in his budget, we did not know there was going to be a reduction as dramatic as there was in the price of the produce.

Mr Villenueve: The federal government knew. They offered you money and you took it.

Mr Johnson: The member says the federal government knew. I guess they were keeping it a secret.

Mr Villeneuve: You took the money and said the farmers won't get it.

The Acting Speaker: When he was speaking, the member for S-D-G & East Grenville had the full attention of the House. It would be appreciated if we could carry on the debate introduced by the member in question. If he would refrain from constant interjections, it would add to the quality of the debate.

Mr Johnson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It does make it somewhat difficult to concentrate on exactly what one is going to say when one is continually being badgered by the opposition.

Our government inherited the fiscal situation we have to operate in. It was not one of our own making. Given the difficult economic situation the province finds itself in, we have not forgotten the farmers. In fact, we understand that later this week the Minister of Agriculture and Food is going to make an announcement that I expect will be very positive and will help out the farmers in this province.

I must say I cannot support the resolution that was presented by the opposition here today.

Mr Ramsay: It is a great pleasure for me to rise in my place today to enter this debate that has been brought forward by the third party on its opposition day. I am pleased to be able to participate in the debate, which focuses attention on an industry in this province that sadly lacks that focus and attention. I applaud my colleagues in the Progressive Conservative Party for bringing this forward today.

However, I must add the caveat that I am having a little difficulty in serving agriculture today as I am also on the standing committee on resources development, and as a result three weeks ago put forward a resolution in that committee so that we could bring in farmers, people from the land, people from the agrifood industry. That is going on right now, so after my remarks I will be returning to committee room 1 in the Legislative Building, because right now as we speak we have farmers from Kent and Essex counties speaking before the resources development committee for the people at home. It is comprised of representatives in this House from all three parties, as we are very concerned about the agricultural situation in Ontario today. I will be getting back to that in a minute.

I must make a comment in regard to the comments made by the previous speaker, the member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings. It seems to me that when a member of this House stands up and starts to bemoan the loss of food-processing jobs and says these companies are only there for profit, we have a bit of the germ of the problem here. Unfortunately many members on the government side do not quite understand how business operates. If we cannot make the agrifood industry and the agrifood producers and processors in Ontario profitable, they will be steamrollered over by the companies in the rest of the world. With the new free-trading blocs that are forming around the world, we will be steamrollered by cheap food coming into Ontario. It is imperative the government work with both the processors and the producers to make sure we can produce food in this jurisdiction of Ontario as efficiently as possible.

What is happening is that our traditional agricultural base is being challenged today in Ontario. As I am sure many members of this House realize, Ontario, being extremely well blessed with soil and weather conditions and incredibly efficient producers and great research and development in the agrifood industry, produces over 200 different commodities. Just to give a comparison for people who are not as familiar with the agrifood industry as many in this House are, the state of Michigan, which shares the same latitude as us and is a neighbour of Ontario, only produces 80 different commodities. Ontario is a world leader in agricultural production. It is an absolutely incredible jurisdiction for agriculture.

1550

But as other jurisidictions are being allowed free access into the markets of Ontario, driven by our consumers who want products year-round on their grocery shelves, what is happening and what we are finding is that the traditional base of 200 commodities is being challenged. I think what is going to happen in the future of Ontario agriculture is we probably will not be producing 200 different commodities in Ontario. We will probably find we are not as highly competitive as some jurisdictions in all the commodities we produce, so sadly, we will probably see a restructuring, a rationalizing of Ontario agriculture. But we will be pursuing and continuing to grow and process those commodities that we do well, that we can do the very best in the world. We can do that.

As an example, what we are probably going to see is that it might be tough for Ontario to compete with California, let's say, to produce tomato solids. Having the Mediterranean-type climate that California has, it is probably the best place in the world to grow tomatoes, so articles such as ketchup and paste and the concentrated forms of tomato products may not continue to be grown here as much as they have been in the past. But because of the challenges of transportation, I am sure we will have a very viable tomato juice industry in Ontario, as it would make sense to be grow tomatoes in Ontario to produce products in 48-ounce cans for Ontario and the rest of Canada. This rationalization does not mean we are going to be denied a fair share of agricultural production in the world. In fact, we will be changing the direction of some of the products we produce.

The question here today, though, somehow posed at this government, and to be fair at all governments in the history of this province and this country is, how does government assist this particular industry? The question may be addressed and may be asked, why does government have some sort of special relationship, as we all as Canadians know it does, with agriculture? I think the reason for that is because most of us feel it is imperative that as a sovereign nation we develop, as much as possible, a level of self-sufficiency. It seems to me for a country to be saying it is a freestanding country on its own, it should have the ability, or close to it, to feed itself.

I think this is why government and agriculture have been partners, especially in this country and in countries around the world, and why probably any ag minister today in any country would probably say what this ag minister today is saying. The agrifood industry is absolutely vital to the citizens of every country in this world and even though we have freer trading in the world, it is imperative that we have a base of self-sufficiency of food production in Ontario.

Yes, we can have freer trade and maybe some commodities might some day be fully supplied from outside of Ontario. I would not like to see that situation develop. For all the different political upheavals we see around the world, we would be putting our food supply at threat. Maybe more important, for environmental reasons, we would not want to put our eggs in one basket. We would not want to say that the American Midwest, which has the capacity to grow cereal grains for this country and its own country, the United States, should be doing that, because what if they have a tremendous drought in the breadbasket in those midwestern states of the United States? What happens to our food supply?

Environmentally we should make sure we can produce as much food as we can, and so it becomes a government question. The business of agriculture becomes a question for the state, unlike any other business government is involved in, and so year after year we start to wrestle with this. We as people elected in a democracy start to wrestle with the concerns of the whole agrifood industry. Up till now what we have come up with are only short-term solutions. We tend to be reacting -- of course, speaking as the ex-Minister of Agriculture and Food, I include myself in the very same position -- to the demands of the agrifood industry on a crisis basis. Therefore, we tend to react on an ad hoc basis.

What I am proposing is that for today we have to continue to do that. I would like in my heart of hearts to see, and I will certainly help the minister of agriculture today, work on some long-term programs. I think farm financing is essential. We need to be working on that. I have some ideas I wanted to work on that I would like to share, but today we are talking about a cash shortage. We will have to try to find a means to inject some cash into this industry so that this industry can continue and be strong in the future.

Mr McLean: I am pleased to rise today and speak on this opposition day resolution in this House emergency debate with regard to agriculture. I think the timing is right. The problem farmers are facing is there and I believe the debate today will be most stimulating in this House. We all know the problem farmers are facing, especially the grain and oil seed farmers. Grain and oil seed prices are running at about 30% below what they were in the Dirty Thirties, so to speak.

The current crisis in agriculture is not because Ontario farmers are inefficient or unproductive. There are not large surpluses of the products produced on Ontario's farms. Subsidy levels for Ontario farmers are remarkably lower than in other Canadian provinces and far lower than in most other developed countries. Ontario's farmers can compete against other farmers, but they cannot compete against other national and provincial state treasuries without comparable support from their own government.

New safety-net programs, such as the gross revenue insurance program and the net income stabilization account, will offer the expectation of reasonable income support in the future for grain and oil seed producers. But this is little comfort to the large numbers of farm families facing a desperate situation in 1991, because they are confronted with the inability to protect themselves from creditors who are expecting near-term payment for their cropping expenses.

But the major flaw with GRIP and NISA is that payouts for the 1991 and 1992 crop years will not be forthcoming until late winter or early spring of next year, and it will probably end up being late spring of next year. How are many farm families going to survive over the next 7 or 8 or 10 months? It will be very difficult. The answer lies in special payments for the current period. This calls for an immediate response from the Ontario government. This Wednesday the minister will probably announce a piddling little announcement of about $20 million, which will not be effective for anyone.

It is interesting to note that $576 million is the total budget for the Ministry of Agriculture and Food in one year, a 3.2% increase over last year. It is interesting to note that the almost 6% given to the civil servants' increase in pay salary was approximately $512 million. Would it not probably have made common sense to have given them 3% and the farmers the 3% extra? That would have amounted to some $200 million. Obviously the Minister of Agriculture and Food has not got a strong voice around that cabinet table or the farmers of this province would have had a lot more money in their pockets to survive.

The current NDP government rode to power on the backs of Ontario's farmers and is now ignoring their desperate situation. This government has to face up to the fact that a growing percentage of Ontario's farmers live in financially strained circumstances. This government must realize that poverty is just as much a rural issue as it is an urban issue. Farmers may not be unemployed but no matter how long and hard they work, they just cannot make ends meet. They are falling deeper into debt and they are quickly losing hope. Suicide has taken place in many counties of this province because of the desperate situation.

The NDP agriculture policy is neither kind nor just to our farmers. This government does not treat the farm community fairly, as it does the rest of society. It is the responsibility of this government to make sure we have productivity and fair distribution. It must allocate special GRIP and NISA payments now that will assist farmers in surviving their current economic difficulties. We are saying we had better sit up and take notice. The way the minister has travelled across this province, I am sure he knows what the problems are, but does he have the power around the cabinet table to get those funds for the province?

1600

How can the minister really stop and support around that cabinet table a 6% increase for the civil servants in this province, amounting to more than $512 million, when his total budget for the Ministry of Agriculture and Food is about $576 million? Why could he not get more money into the agricultural budget? When we look at the announcement he is going to make this week, it had better be equal to some 3% or more of his total budget or the farmers in Ontario will be in desperate need.

The member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings does not support this resolution. I find that absurd because this resolution wants to do something for our agricultural industry, and it will, if the minister will just listen.

Mr O'Connor: I am pleased today to be speaking on this motion, not in favour of the motion, but on the motion itself, because I think that as members of this Legislature we have to recognize that, yes, the farmers of the province have problems right now. I am glad we have this opportunity to speak about it publicly, because it is very important.

There are a lot of things that are of concern to our farmers, in fact just on these programs alone. I am sure the minister will be addressing them quite soon, at the appropriate time and in the right fashion, but last week I had an opportunity to meet with the Durham Federation of Agriculture, which had many concerns. Just to give an example of some of the farmers who were there, there were pork producers, some cattlemen, some dairy producers and some cash croppers, sometimes referred to as cashless croppers in these tight times -- because times are tight.

The more than 60,000 families in the province right now that are farmers add an enormous amount to the Ontario economy; I think it is in the order of $17 billion. But we have to make sure we take a look at all the issues and do not try to go too ad hoc in taking a look at some of the problems. I know some things need to be looked at, but if farming is to continue, we have to make sure we continue in a fashion that is going to make sure it continues as a viable industry.

One of the members here in the House mentioned the fact that we seem to be taking care of just the unions and the Canadian Auto Workers, for example. I would like to tell members that I am a Canadian auto worker. I worked in Oshawa in the assembly plant there. In the car pool that I took down to Oshawa there were some farmers. The reason they were working in Oshawa was that they could not quite make enough farming, so what they had to do was subsidize their farming activities by working in the plant in Oshawa. When we take a look at some of these people who work in these unionized plants, some of those people are farmers, so we have to make sure we take a look at all of them.

They did not want to be full-time workers in an assembly plant; they wanted to be farmers. That is what their heritage was and their traditions were and they want to continue. They do not want to have to try to discourage their families from being farmers, but unfortunately times are very tough and they have to take a look at alternatives.

One of the concerns the people at the Durham federation brought up last week was of course the state of emergency facing agriculture right now. Debate is taking place right now down below us in this Legislative Building on that. But they had other concerns, like the use of ethanol for the future as a clean way of producing fuel.

They were concerned about some of the local issues, like the wolf and coyote bounties and the problem of losing crops and things of that nature. They were concerned of course with tax rebates and wealth tax and a number of other concerns, so we have to talk with these people. The Fair Tax Commission will take their consideration as part of it.

They were concerned about farm day care, and they were concerned for a number of different reasons; one was just what we are debating today, that both parents on a farm have to work. They are also concerned about farm safety. For too many years the children were left in conditions that were not necessarily safe. Where else in this province do we have an industry that allows children to be part of it? They are working at trying to solve some of that. They are trying to create an atmosphere that will be safe for day care for farmers.

They are concerned about the environmental bill of rights and how that will affect them. It is something where they wanted to have their concerns heard. There are two members from the Ontario federation who are part of the advisory committee to the Ministry of the Environment, and I am pleased to hear that. These people are concerned about it too.

They are also concerned, as part of my region within the GTA, about the garbage crisis that we have, and the garbage dump. They are concerned that the previous government was taking a look at greenfield landfill sites. They are very pleased with the process as it is being established right now, with the Interim Waste Authority taking a look at trying to come up with something that is more open and trying to come up with a solution for the waste problem we have.

We have to make sure we hear all their concerns and do not stress just a few of them. We have to make sure we listen to all of them.

As a member of this caucus, we have a rural advisory committee, and speaking to the Minister of Agriculture and Food at Honey Harbour, as many of us from rural ridings did, we told him we wanted to make sure we had more say, because the rural communities play an important, vital part in the Ontario economy. I was pleased with the comments by the Premier there a week ago that when we start looking at economic renewal, the rural communities are going to play an active part in that, because that is very important. It is key.

We have a very strong rural advisory committee. In fact, the chair of our committee, who is the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture and Food, comes from the Port Huron Federation of Agriculture. I think he is very active and in fact might have been the president. I am really pleased by that because it shows that there are farmers in here. Yes, there are auto workers in this place and there are a few social workers, but we all have concerns about the economy of the province as a whole.

Too often we stand in this House and we just shout back and forth. We never listen to each other and have real genuine concern for each other. I think if we have productive conversation, talk to one another and at times even listen, we can have a lot more productive debate, the needs of the people of Ontario and of the farm people will be taken care of, and due consideration will be the reward for all of us in this Legislature.

Mr Cleary: This province's agrifood and related industry generates $17 billion in economic activity while creating 1 in 10 jobs. Over 200 different food products are farmed on 14 million acres of land, and the industry is the second biggest employer in Ontario. Despite the significance and necessity of the agrifood industry, urban consumers remain unaware of the problems facing farmers, such as why so little of what people pay for food actually goes to the farm.

I was pleased to be at the kickoff in the classroom at the Ontario Agricultural Museum this morning in Milton, where we had many teachers and many from the agricultural groups in attendance. There was a lot of enthusiasm there this morning.

Farmers are facing incredible economic stress. I met with farmers from across this province to discuss the current stress farmers are attempting to survive in 1991: drought as a culmination of four previous years of climatic hardship; declining prices for grain, oilseed, corn, soybeans and wheat, and a declining tender fruit industry. We must promote Ontario fruit and vegetables.

Some of the farmers I met with were concerned about the new legislation in labour laws that might be coming from this government. Even livestock prices are beginning to fall. The drought has seared much of the southwest crop and has even caused much damage in parts of eastern Ontario.

1610

One thing I would like to touch on is beaver control. It is a very serious problem in this province. There used to be a good program in the Ministry of Natural Resources where they would hire unemployed people or people on social assistance through the conservation authorities and they would control the beaver. I think that was a good program and there was really value for the money. It may not be a problem all over Ontario, but in parts of eastern Ontario it is a really big problem.

Finally, while cash cropping is important in eastern Ontario, there are a lot of diversifications into dairy, beef, hog and feather farming, all industries which have their own problems. In particular, I cite the difficulties with the recent closure of some of the pet food and rendering plants in Ontario, and that is not just in eastern Ontario. The farmers have done their part; they have made a presentation to the ministry. I hope we do not step back many generations and I hope that will be addressed shortly. Aside from the physical limitations of effective disposal of the dead carcasses, farmers cannot afford to pay long-distance haulage.

Farmers also face an extra burden of cross-border shopping. Consumers, largely unaware of the impact of a bargain, abandon Ontario agriculture, particularly in poultry and dairy products. The mayors of many communities had a task force about this serious problem, which causes problems in the agricultural community, and they feel they may be getting the runaround.

Interestingly enough, however, the business council conducted a study of grocery prices on each side of the border. A typical basket that would cost in Ontario between $94.41 and $101 in New York state tallied at $93.50, plus exchange and duty.

However, it is not only the customers who are there looking for bargains in the United States. Shopping could significantly reduce the input costs of the farming community, the biggest price differences being largely in oil, grease and fuels. One 700 acre farm operator indicated that if he were to buy in the United States, he could save $10,000 a year.

I have heard a lot about the potential collapse of the Ontario farm economy and the failure of the government to realize the situation. For that reason, my colleagues im the Tory caucus pushed very strongly for an emergency discussion of the current state of the economy facing our rural communities.

While I am disappointed over the delay in initiating the hearings, I feel this is a good first step. The minister and the members of the resources development committee have already heard from the agricultural commodity groups, the Canadian Bankers Association, the Ontario Milk Marketing Board, the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario and the National Farmers Union. There is no mistake there is a crisis facing the farmers. This afternoon the cattlemen and the wheat producers and the soybean growers are present.

The Ontario agriculture commodity council represents some 50,000 Ontario farmers. Thousands of these farmers are being faced this year with the worst economic conditions in memory. This is particularly true for grain and oil seeds. The situation is labelled as a crisis in Ontario among farm groups in both the financial and the social agony. Ontario grain and oil seed prices have fallen during 1991 from values some 30% lower than usual.

Farmers say: "We can compete against other farmers. We cannot compete against other nations and provincial or state treasuries without comparable support programs from our government." The new growth revenue insurance plan, named GRIP, and the net income stabilization account, will not be fully operational for grain and oil seeds until the next crop season. There is no plan to introduce GRIP for horticultural produce. This is of little comfort to a large number of Ontario families facing a desperate income situation in 1991 and an inability to protect themselves from creditors. While the comprehensive GRIP and NISA programs may be considered a long-term solution, this program will not be provided until late winter or next spring.

Cash-strapped farmers cannot afford to wait for several months. It is with great interest that I read the minister's comments in the September 23 Windsor Star, "I want to signal today that we are very serious about supporting farmers." I think the minister made those same comments today. I know it is a federal-provincial problem, but as long as we use Ontario farmers the same as we use every other group in Ontario, I think everyone will be satisfied.

I believe the Minister of Agriculture and Food said, "All we can do is find some money to try to flow as quickly as possible." Many farmers stated that their income would be actually increased if they were to shut down their operation and collect social assistance. It frightens me to think of the tremendous level of personal and financial stress the farmers in this province are currently enduring. The crisis is plainly there. It is the duty of the Ontario Minister of Agriculture and Food to assist the farmers in the province in this very hour of need.

Mr Jordan: It is certainly a pleasure this afternoon to have the opportunity to speak to our leader's motion. He has certainly from the time of the election over a year ago been very supportive of the farm community, which was especially interesting to me as the representative for the riding of Lanark-Renfrew.

As members know, the riding is made up of many small and mixed farming types. Early in my career last year, as the member for Lanark-Renfrew I had the pleasure to have the Minister of Agriculture and Food visit our riding, of which I was very appreciative and so were the many farm groups who were in attendance. In order to be as educational and as helpful as we could to the minister, I had them organized in such a way that rather than have different ones actually repeating themselves with presentations, I had each group get together and make one person responsible for that group and make the presentation available to the minister.

Hon Mr Buchanan: It was well done.

Mr Jordan: I thank the minister. The follow-up on that is my problem. The minister, I believe, was given copies of the presentations and certainly promised to look into each and every one of them. I know that I cannot single out Lanark-Renfrew as being separate from the province of Ontario, but the nature of our farming operation is certainly the small family farm. It gives me great concern that even though there was great interest shown by the minister and by his government, and assistance promised, to date we have seen no change.

I can say to the minister today that if he were visiting one of those farms, he would find they are facing their tax bill, are facing winter with an increase in hydro and with an increase in many other items, fuel and so on, that directly affect their operation. They do not have alternate means of transportation. They have their half-ton truck or their car to come to town. All these costs are finally bringing down the small family farm.

1620

I think the previous speakers have generally covered the provincial financial problems of the farm. That is why this afternoon I would more or less like to concentrate on that small family farm, because from it are the small general store and many other spinoff businesses in my riding. I would like to mention in particular a provincial law that the minister, I understand, is going to bring in in January 1992. This provincial law is going to require that all eggs sold at the marketplace will require a federal grade. Those eggs will not even be allowed to be placed in a used container. They must each time be placed in a new container. The container alone costs 12 cents. The reasoning behind implementing this provincial law to that standard at this time is of real concern to many of the family farms in my riding.

Many of the farmers, along with their beef operations, have perhaps 400 to 500 hens, which can create enough income to perhaps pay the taxes and the heat. This is going to be a real blow to them, not only to the farmer who is accustomed to that cash income but to the small merchant at the general store and the tourist trade in that area. They are saying they are doing it in the interests of safety to the consumer, but if you think about it for a minute, it is really one of the few products that we get already wrapped. Here we are worrying about whether it is going to be placed in a new container and whether it is going to meet a federal standard before it can be sold to the general store.

I would plead with the minister to rescind his plan to implement that provincial law in January 1992. I do not see the need for it. Certainly in the areas I have visited in Lanark-Renfrew, there has been no problem in any health or safety respect. Perhaps some clarification of the need for bringing that law in at this time would help at least to explain the situation to those farmers who are in such need.

As the members can see from the different presentations this afternoon, the real problem is not the efficiency of the farm. It is not the type of operation. It is the subsidies and some of these regulations that the ministries of agriculture are requiring of the product.

Again, I would ask that the minister try and keep that small family farm in mind when he comes forth with regulations that are going to limit its cash flow. It could be -- and not too far in our area -- that the production of food would actually not take place, because I know from experience in visiting the actual farm locations that there is no other group anywhere, unionized or not unionized, that would ever be satisfied with the net income the farmers in Lanark-Renfrew have been getting along with, and are prepared to carry on with, if they can expect some protection from this government.

The larger farmers certainly are having a greater debt problem and are expecting the Minister of Agriculture and Food to follow through with the plans he gave when he visited our riding about a year ago. At that time the minister had a group travelling the province which was interviewing the different farm groups, interviewing the different farm businesses and had hoped, within a reasonable period of time, to come back with legislation that would be suitable to sustain and support farm income.

I do not want to take any more time. I want to close with bringing the problem in my riding to the minister's attention. I can say in all honesty that the people, when he visited, had good faith in his promises. They are still hoping that before the end of this year the assistance required will be forthcoming. The regulations such as closing down the farmer's market or regulating it to such an extent that he cannot afford to spend $60,000 on an egg-grading station to meet a federal grade -- the minister does have that opportunity. It is my understanding it is a provincial law and I do not see the need for him to be implementing it at this time.

Mr Klopp: I would like to stand and talk about this business of agriculture. It gives me great pride, as a farmer from Huron county, and as one who has been on all sides, I guess, of this issue.

I remember back in about 1979 when the Huron County Federation of Agriculture asked me to get involved in the politics of agriculture, and I said: "Oh no, we do not have to worry about that. We just have to worry about production. I will be a smarter manager, and I will learn how to play the Chicago Board of Trade," and a few of those farmers looked at me.

I remember when I was in one of the local establishments and was telling one of my younger farmer friends to go to school and learn all the economics, "We will just work harder and we will have bigger farms and we will get rid of all our neighbours." Of course, I figured my neighbour would stay, because he was the guy I was talking to. One farmer leaned over and said, "In all the years I have been farming, I have never seen a pencil yet put a crop in or take it off." I remembered that, because you can do your economics and you can learn a lot about production, but you have to also learn how to market the product.

I also soon found out you have to watch the politicians. I found out over the years that politicians would do a lot of smokescreening and tell me they were my friends, but I kept looking for my background as a bit of an economist, and saying I want to see numbers and I want to see facts and figures, They said they were my friends, but I can say with friends like that, who needs enemies?

In fact, the thing that really bothered me the most about this motion today was not that we were finally discovering that agriculture is important in this province -- I have been saying it for years and many other people have -- but the fact that the third party seems to insinuate that the NDP knows nothing about agriculture and cares nothing about agriculture, which I find to be totally ridiculous.

I think if there is any mistake I have made so far as a member of Parliament -- and we have only been here about a year -- it is the fact that I did underestimate the federal government's and the past government's entrenchment of trying to put farmers as second fiddlers.

I can think back very clearly when the Minister of Agriculture and Food went to the first meeting he went to last fall and was told third line of defence or any shortfalls would be taken up by the federal government. They would make it up, just gross revenue insurance plan and net income stabilization account, etc, "We worry about the future; the feds will take care of the past."

I guess I should have known far more clearly because of 1989 or 1979 and in many other years when they said, "We're going to take care of the high interest rate policy; we'll help you out," and then they threw a line to us. Of course, I was 10 feet out in the water and they threw the line out four feet and said, "Well, we threw it out."

The fact of the matter is that NISA, under the federal program in which they put all their third line of defence money, is apparently only going to be $30 million or $40 million, which is totally ridiculous. They did a nice job of smokescreening it. They tied it to us and said that if we put in 1%, they would put in 0.5%. The reality is that it is not enough money. They made a commitment that they were going to give what the difference was between the low commodity prices and -- they were hoping probably they would go to $4 and heaven forbid, so did I, but it did not happen.

This thing does go back many years, and the sad fact is that it has been going for a long time. We have also had some bright spots in agriculture. We have had the odd Minister of Agriculture and Food who truly did have to pound his fist on the desk in the cabinet room because he was the only person there -- or maybe a few of his colleagues in the caucus -- who really understood that when farmers do make a living it helps the whole community.

1630

I was glad to hear one member mention the family farm and the smaller family farm, something with which I totally agree. What small is, heaven knows, but at least it is getting away from this idea that the corporations will take it over. Indeed they will: That is where it has come to rest, and we have finally realized this in such a blunt fashion.

The fact is, agriculture has got the few the things it has not because of government but in spite of government. I can think back to the 1980s and the fact that the Economic Council of Canada actually hired agricultural economists who already had a predetermined conclusion that things like supply management should go, when that is one of the few bright spots we have ever had. In fact, we should increase it more to somehow give farmers the power to make a farm-gate price, which is truly what we need. We do not need safety nets; we need planks. We need a time when, if I do a decent day's work, if I am a good business person and do a good job in the field, I can get my just return, just as this government has done for years, standing behind people in unions and non-unions. It actually stood behind federal and provincial ministers who have stood for things that have tried to put farmers in that light.

Back in 1969-70, the economists, the academics, were hired; there was a federal task force on agriculture, because there was a problem in the 1960s with farmers' income. Do members know what those people said? Those people told the federal government -- and it is still their policy today -- that the problem in agriculture is that there are too many farmers; we have to get them more efficient and bigger. As sure as guns, I always said, how few do we get? Do we get down to 10,000? Right now we are looking at about 30% of the farmers in deep financial trouble. Now everybody recognizes that when a farmer goes broke so does rural Ontario, and I applaud that. We have to work to get that straightened up.

There have been two types of people in the federal and provincial governments over the years, the economists who are only worried about their economic values, then those who think there are bigger things than just economies of scale: the whole idea of the spinoff effects of what agriculture does, what small business does.

Our party has had no problem with that. We have recognized that for years. This has been shown in federal programs, showing that this government actually puts itself into action. One of the first things the federal Tories did back in 1986 was set up the rural transition program. They openly admitted: "Let's get rid of the farmers. Let's not help them with their commodity prices, because everybody has to eat. Let's not look at the issue in the middle, the people there. Their profits seems to be going up, yet the farmers are going down and the consumers are not benefiting."

The shortfall in payouts: As an example, just today a fellow came into the office of the member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings and said that last year the federal government gave $15 million to the horticulture sector. They were told they could spend it any way they wanted, basically. They worked with the provincial people and put the money out to the farmers. This year, under this great third line of defence, they said there is $6 million for the horticulture sector. The horticulture sector figured there is $70 million of hurt. Granted, no government has an open-ended book, but $6 million is far from $70 million. In fact, the money -- I am going to have to report back on this to this gentleman; I think the member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings has already -- was not given to the provincial government and the vegetable people to just dole out as they pleased. They were told, "You can't just give it out so much per acre" or whatever. They were told to make it into different things. This particular farmer said their part of this horticulture money is actually going into research and development. Research and development is very important, but the farmers now need money in their hands. These are the kinds of things that frustrate me very much and I think frustrate a lot of farmers. Of course, he came and talked to us, and it is a federal issue.

We look at farm credit and wonder about their farm debt review board panels. A farmer the other day came to me and asked if I knew the federal government had a program to help farmers write down their debt. It was called schedule B, the Principles Governing the Participants of the Farm Credit Corp in Farm Debt Review. But this was never passed out any more than an order in council, I understand. It made me wonder, as I thought over the last eight or nine years, how some farmers could get a decent write-down and yet other farmers -- in the short time we have been here, in this last year and a half, we have spent many hours fighting not only with the Farm Credit Corp but banks, trying to stand beside farmers. Those section Cs, the wonderful things that helped the bank out, which our previous government and a whole bunch of lawyers and accountants set up, but it really did not help the farmer: We are working on those and trying to get them cleaned up finally.

I often wondered why some farmers could get better deals. Maybe the federal government just wanted certain people to know about this order in council. If you are there for all the farmers, do not just put things in for a few. We will see what happens with that issue.

This government knows very well the situation and how bad it is, although it is an issue that has been going on far too long. We need to deal with the long-term issues; we need to deal with the short term. The member is very right.

One of the things we have done as NDP governments in other provinces is put in things like decent long-term interest rate programs. We helped not only with that but tried to find ways to give the farmers a fair shake if debt review were to take place.

One program is called the Execution Act. In the west, they increased that to give the farmers a little more clout if the situation warranted. In our province, we have not made any changes to it since 1930, I believe. They have amended a few things, but they have not helped.

These things are all needed in order to make a fair and level playing table. Indeed, one example which we all know -- I will be very short -- is the Canagrex issue. The federal Tories did everything to defeat that. There were mixed emotions in their party between big business and those in the rural area. The Liberals also had that. Mr Whelan, indeed, was fighting his own cabinet ministers, which he openly admits, and ironically some of those same people who were in that Liberal bureaucracy went on to be advisers for the Tory party after it was elected. Is it any wonder one of the first things that government did was get rid of Canagrex, one of the few things that might have started giving farmers a chance to get a fair market value at the farm gate? Allow me to go broke if I am a lousy farmer, not because of lousy politicians.

A few members talked about out west where they have better programs and seem to have a little more clout with agriculture. I sit with some amusement, and I am sure Tommy Douglas must be sitting up there also -- well, he is probably crying because he has seen things with the divine solution. He must be saying, "We do it to ourselves again."

The situation shows that many of those programs were started by NDP governments. Many in Alberta and a few places said: "How do we get re-elected? We had better follow those programs or, by God, they'll put those New Democrats in." It is not an easy solution. As I pointed out, through the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, we have had ups and downs. Unfortunately, we are not going to wave a magic wand. I never thought that eight or nine years ago, when I was on the other side as a lobbyist.

I think we can do a lot of things. We are committed to doing a lot of things in this government. As was pointed out earlier, this government realizes that agriculture is indeed an economic kingpin in this province. It was good to see the other night up at Lucknow that the consumer association representative in that area said she was not going to go around like I remember that organization doing in the 1980s, saying that farmers are making too much and we should stop them. She said there that night that she was going to send a different message, that farmers need a fair price, so that is good.

I know some honourable members on the other side of this House are good members and want to make it work, but we definitely do not need this kind of motion because it does not address the problem. Really we are a government that does care. We are going to work at that and we are going to work at it as hard and as fast as possible.

Mr Mancini: I join my colleagues in the Legislature in debating the agriculture motion that has been put forward by the leader of the third party, using one of his and his party's very important opposition days to discuss an important element of the Ontario economy.

I must disagree with my colleague who just sat down who said that this motion was not necessary or was not important. As a matter of fact, the opposite is true. Agriculture needs to be discussed here in the Legislature today among all parties for a variety of reasons. As a matter of fact, agricultural issues seem to be dominating the early part of this session of this fall's legislative sitting. Why? Because right now, simultaneously in the standing committee on resources development, agriculture is being discussed, and agricultural organizations and commodity groups from around Ontario are making presentations to the three parties that represent the public in this Legislature.

Here today we are using a full afternoon session to further discuss agriculture. Earlier on today I know that the minister met with a number of groups, one of them being the Essex county drought committee that is with us this afternoon. Why is agriculture being discussed so often in this legislative session? Why is agriculture being discussed in committee and in the Legislature? Why has the Minister of Agriculture and Food already intimated on a number of occasions that emergency financial relief is being prepared for the farm community of Ontario? For one very obvious reason: High input costs, low commodity prices and the international trade war which continues between the European Community and the United States, with no regard to the effects on other producer nations, has forced agriculture in Ontario to its knees.

1640

We are here to ensure that the agricultural community of this province survives to serve Ontario into the next millennium. That is why we are discussing the problems. That is why the minister of agriculture has been under the gun.

I am sorry to say it was only a few days ago when the leader of the government opened this new session with what I thought to be a very valuable speech. In his speech he cautioned all of us in the Legislature to be careful about what we had to say and to do a lot less finger-pointing. He mentioned he wanted to do a lot less finger-pointing at the government in Ottawa and the business community in general. He wanted a new atmosphere to take over the old and existing atmosphere that seems to pervade the legislative chamber and he wanted it all to work in a more collective fashion.

What did we hear today from the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture and Food? Did we hear concrete proposals on what was going to happen as far as Ontario policy is concerned? No, we did not hear that. We heard very little of that, I am sorry to say. We heard a full frontal assault on the government of Canada. Far be it from me to defend the government of Canada. It will defend itself. But what do we make of the lecture the Premier gave us only a few days ago? Is that only for the members of the opposition or is it for the government members too? Whom was that lecture for?

Are we now not allowed to question government ministers and NDP socialist policy because the Premier will get up and say: "You're finger-pointing. You're not helping solve the problem"? Is it only us who have to be restrained, and is it only the NDP socialist members of the Legislature who now have the authority to speak freely in the Legislature? Is it only they who can get up and make comments on what is going on in Canada and here in our province? Is that what we want in the Legislature? I do not think so. If that is what the NDP government thinks it is going to receive, it is sadly mistaken.

Mr Mammoliti: What do you want?

Mr Mancini: The NDP socialist members of the assembly are shouting at me, "What do you want?" I want the government to give the same respect to agriculture as it did to nurses. I want them to respect agriculture in the same way they respected doctors when they wrestled them to the ceiling for higher fees. I want the government to respect farmers the same way it respected its own civil servants. Why should civil servants in Ontario receive increases in pay of anywhere from 6% to 13%, when our farmers cannot get 50% of their costs back, let alone an increase in pay? Does the member want to know what I want from the government? That is what I want from the government. I want them to be just as concerned for agriculture as they seem to be for all the large, well-financed public interest groups that greased their wheels into office. That is what I want them to do.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Obviously the debate will improve in quality if two things happen. One is if there are fewer interjections, and two, if the member will be somewhat less provocative in his remarks.

Mr Mancini: My comments were not provocative at all.

Mrs Y. O'Neill: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: The clock was continuing to go during your comments, which were taken away from the speaker's comments.

The Acting Speaker: These are 25 precious seconds that should be returned to the member.

Mr Mancini: Mr Speaker, I say to you with great respect that you have been around the Legislature a number of years, and I remember your defence of a certain hospital in your community. If you were to re-read your comments and compare them with the comments I have made today, one might consider that my comments today are very reasoned.

It is true the members opposite made certain promises to highly organized, large, well-financed interest groups that financed them into office and worked for them on the streets. Members know whom I am referring to. I say to the government that we are not going to sit idly by no matter how uncomfortable it makes the members feel. No matter how uncomfortable my colleagues across the floor feel, we are not going to sit by and allow them to spend hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money and at the same time ignore the economic segment of our economy that is responsible for 20% of the employment in this province.

I say to my colleagues opposite and to the minister that we have been patient and that we are willing to be more patient. We know that right now the minister is gathering information and that his staff is reviewing information for him. We understand he is meeting on a regular basis with farm groups over the high input costs and low commodity prices and the situation affected by the drought. We know he is doing that. We want to give the minister every opportunity to come up with the best assistance package possible.

It has been said today in the Legislature that the minis-ter indeed carries a lot of clout. I say to him I hope he does. I hope he carries a lot of clout and his cabinet colleagues are listening, because if he does not have the clout that was described today and if his cabinet colleagues and caucus members are not behind him, we will see the withering away of one of the most important economic segments of the Ontario economy. When that happens, small-town rural Ontario will die. There is no doubt about it. If we do not have --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: I would like to bring to order the member for Yorkview and also the member for Downsview. The member is out of his seat, I believe. If members wish to contribute in this House, they do so from their seats. I ask you to return to your seat.

1650

Mr Mancini: The interjections we just heard were from members who have not participated in the resources development committee, so they have not been privy to the information that has been made available to members from all sides of the House over the last week or so. They have not had the privilege of hearing that information. They were not with the minister today from about 11:15 until noon to hear from the drought committee. They are very inexperienced members who have had little opportunity to meet farm groups across this province. Sure enough, when they hear that the farm community is in trouble and that rural Ontario may die if we cannot support our farmers, these are strange words to their ears.

They may in fact be comfortable in their own constituencies, but I do not think my friend the member for Essex-Kent, who has worked with me and who has worked with the drought committee, found those words too strong. As a matter of fact, I think he supports those words. He was part of a group, and we worked collectively together, that put together the brief we gave to the minister today. He was part of a group that put together the brief that went before the resources development committee today.

What did that brief say? The brief said in very, very clear terms that because of the drought -- we are talking only Essex county now, no other part of the province, and we are not talking about low commodity prices and high input costs; we are only talking about the drought. The factual information that was put forward today shows very clearly that the loss to Essex county farmers over and above what crop insurance will cover will be at least $20 million. That will be the loss to individual farmers.

There is a multiplier effect of seven that is used in rural communities because of the importance of the farm community in the general economy. Every dollar generated at the farm gate will multiply through the economy by seven. We are using the most minimal figures possible. Multiply $20 million by seven and see what that does for Essex county, a region of the province that has probably the highest unemployment levels in Canada. Small towns like Essex, Harrow, Amhertsburg, Leamington and Belle River have no future without a vibrant farm economy.

I say to the minister and to my colleagues opposite that we want to work with them. We want to help bring the problems facing the farmers to the fore today and over the next few weeks and we are counting on them to respond.

Mr Arnott: I am pleased to participate in the debate this afternoon on Ontario's farm crisis. I would like to begin by commending my friend the member for S-D-G & East Grenville for his excellent presentation today and his ongoing efforts. I believe he is one of the most eloquent and strongest advocates for farm issues in this House. I appreciate his efforts, and also my leader for sponsoring this today. He reaffirmed his commitment to agriculture as late as last week in Brant-Haldimand when he spoke at length on the farm crisis.

In my own riding of Wellington county, the farm crisis is probably the most crucial issue facing us at the present time. When we talk about the farm economy we are talking about Wellington's economy, without a doubt. When you look at the effect that a strong agricultural base has on the local economy, the spinoffs are considerable: the small businesses that rely on farmers coming in to purchase various goods, the retail stores, the farm implement dealers who rely on a strong farm economy to make their money. Look at the farm suppliers and the time that they have been having at the present time.

Since my election and prior to that, I have met with a great many farmers in my riding. I have met with them on their farms, I have met with them in our own riding office and I have also met with them at some of their organizational meetings. I have been struck by one thing, and that is the modest requests that they make, the always very reasonable requests that they make for assistance.

When you look at the farm prices and you look at the aggregate situation -- there were some figures compiled by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food which talk about the cash receipts by source in Ontario for farmers. When you look at 1987 to 1991, cash receipts have remained stagnant; in fact, they have declined slightly. When you flip over and look at gross farm operating expenses, you see from that same period, starting about 1987 to 1991, that they have just taken off to the roof. When you look at those figures, you can understand how farmers are having a very difficult time making ends meet and paying their bills.

You can look at aggregate numbers and they tell you one thing, but if you speak to farmers themselves who are in trouble, it really hits it home. When you speak to them and they ask your own opinion of the future of agriculture and you see the pain and the anguish on their faces when they contemplate the fact that they may be losing their farms, their livelihood -- in some cases farms that have been in their families for many, many years -- when their hope and pride is beginning to ebb because of their financial circumstance, it is very difficult to have to face that. That is why we have to deal with this issue today.

Farmers need more hope and they need more support from this government. We can talk about the federal government all we want, but this Legislature is where we can deal with certain things and we have to deal with it at this level as well.

Mr Hope: We have needed it since 1981.

Mr Arnott: We are dealing with today at the moment, and we have to deal with it at the moment.

When you look at the family farm in rural Ontario, it is a social institution that has to be preserved, as far as I am concerned. It is an institution that is worth preserving, and we have to send out that signal at all times. When you look at the requests that farmers are making, they are asking generally for a decent wage for their labour. That is something that everyone asks for and everyone is entitled to. They are looking for a decent standard of living. That is something we should all support. They are looking for a price for their products which is above their cost of production. That is something they need if they want to stay in business. They are looking for some reasonable return on their investments so that they have some security and something for their families in the future.

We need new programs that will give farmers some hope for the future. That is why we are here today.

In closing, I would like to say to the government members that I was very disappointed to hear the member for Huron indicate he would not be supporting this resolution. But if the government members from the urban ridings who are listening today maybe gain some insight into the farm issues, if they will support this resolution, it will assist their Minister of Agriculture and Food when he goes to the cabinet table to seek support for the farmers of Ontario. If they really want to support farmers and support their minister, they will vote for this resolution.

Mr Hayes: I am glad to speak on this resolution and I am really pleased to see how the opposition is paying attention to this very serious issue here.

I would just like to go back a little bit in the history and maybe let the public know how farmers get into some of the situations they are in here today. Previous governments have encouraged farmers for years to be more productive, more efficient, more competitive. At the same time, the friendly banker came in and said, "There's no end to what we can loan you."

Since that time, and this happened back in the late 1970s and the early 1980s, farmers took the advice of governments federally and provincially across this country to do these things: to be more productive, more efficient, more competitive. Interest rates went sky-high. Input costs went sky-high. Prices have continually gone lower.

Some of the things we talk about here are the recession. You hear people talk about the recession we are in, a recession that we have been in for about two years. A lot of people do not realize that farmers have been in this recession for 10 years.

An hon member: Since the last recession.

Mr Hayes: Since the last recession. They have never, ever recovered.

The Minister of Agriculture and Food and the Premier of this province are well aware of the crisis in this province, and in this country for that matter. We are well aware of the drought situation. The minister has travelled this province. I and my colleague the member for Chatham-Kent have been well involved in this.

1700

One of the first things this ministry and this Minister of Agriculture and Food did, just to show members how important we feel agriculture is and the farmers of this province are, was that the first committee that was ever put together was dealing with the agricultural financial situation in this province, and I was very pleased that the Minister of Agriculture and Food asked me if I would chair that committee, along with the member for Lambton and the member for Frontenac-Addington. We travelled the province. I committed myself to do that tour. I told the minister, "I'll do it on one condition, that I talk to the individual farmers." I think that is very important. Then also we talked to the various associations and commodity groups.

The big thing the farmers were talking about in this province and the message farmers have said to us is that they are sick and tired of ad hoc programs.

I realize we get into these situations. We do get into situations such as the drought, and of course we are in a situation here now that puts us in a position where we do not have any choice but to deal with this in an ad hoc manner.

There are a lot of other factors here besides the bad advice farmers have been given over the years from the so-called experts. A good example, I guess, would be Hunt-Wesson, which is in my riding. When Hunt-Wesson closed, of course, the sad part about that situation is that not only did it lay off workers inside that plant, but there were also 25 farmers who had tomato contracts for three years who ended up with one year, because that company folded up and moved to the United States.

I called up the president of that corporation to try to find out just what this government could do to keep it in operation and try to get it to honour the contract it had with those producers. His answer to me was, "There are three factors here that cause us to leave this province and leave this country: high interest rates, free trade and the inflated Canadian dollar." Farmers are also faced with the unfair competition of the United States and the European Community.

As a result of that tour, getting back to that, when the minister asked me to do that, we came up with the $50-million interest assistance program. It certainly appears that we will be going well over that. That money will all be spent, plus. But what we have done is that we are right in the middle of the process right now of trying to address prices and trying to address putting programs together to address the interest rates and the long term.

I do not mean this as pointing the finger at the federal government, but there is something that is really needed in this country. There are things this provincial government can do. We will do whatever we can do with the resources we have, but I think it is very imperative that the provinces get together and start looking at the real crisis in agriculture in this country and try to get the federal government on stream to work towards a national agricultural strategy that would definitely assist farmers in this country, along with this province.

I know there is a lot of talk, and I have said it myself: I do not think the farmers in this country are even 3% now of the electorate. I think this has been one of the problems, that the politicians looked at that and said: "It's only 3% of them. We can take care of other people." This has really been a problem. It has been a problem traditionally. This did not just start September 6.

The thing is that one of the messages we have to send, I guess, to all politicians is showing them just how the communities across this province are affected every time a farmer is put out on the road, and there have been lots of them put out on the road. I have talked to bank managers and I have talked to managers of credit unions and it is very serious. I know one county, for example, where one of the credit unions has 120 clients, and if something is not done and if we do not address this problem, and of course we have to do it in partnership with our federal government; we will do what we can do --

Mr Villeneuve: Support the motion.

Mr Hayes: That is what we are doing, supporting it. I think that as far as the motion is concerned, the minister already addressed that problem and we are dealing with an immediate problem right now. To address this particular motion is not going to do anything immediately for the farmers. We have to do something immediately and then look at the long-term situation.

I can tell the members right now that when we talk about the various programs, had this government had more input in these particular programs, especially the GRIP program, it would have seen a much superior program.

I believe there is a message that has to be made loud and clear here, and that is that we have to educate people. We have to educate the public, not only the politicians but the public. I think there is something the minister committed himself to again today when we were in Milton when he got up and supported and kicked off the agriculture-in-the-classroom program. I think it is very important we start doing this. It is very important that the people in this province, in this country, understand what the farmer has to go through to get that food on the shelf.

One of the things they do not understand is the costs they have, the input costs, the interest rates and all those kinds of things, and then of course the prices they get. They have been underpaid for way too long and I think this is something that all three parties here should get together and work towards, not work towards --

Mr Villeneuve: Support the motion.

Mr Hayes: Listen, Ms Speaker, there was a motion that was made on the federal government by --

Mr B. Murdoch: Don't blame the federal government again.

Mr Hayes: I am going to tell the member something. We have to work on support to get farmers a decent price, and that is the big thing. We keep talking about: "Let's have another program. That'll hold the farmer over till next year. Let's have another little program and hold him over for a little while longer." All that is doing is just pushing more farmers out on to the road.

I was at the Canadian National Exhibition and they had a mini-farm down there, with cows and hogs and so on. One of the things they did, and it was very good, was they showed the process about going from the egg to the chicken --

Mr B. Murdoch: Chicken --

An hon member: Atta boy.

Mr Hayes: Yes. He is starting to understand.

They showed the process on how they got that product to the kitchen or to the marketplace. I went to each one of those groups and I suggested to them that what they should be doing, if they plan on doing this next year, is putting in great, big, large signs all the costs the farmer has to absorb to get that food on to their table. That is the message the people in this province, in this country, have to see.

I am in the process right now of chairing the committee looking at the long term, and I appreciate the support and assistance from all members of this House, because our goal is to protect and save the family farm, the family farmer. I think that is very important and we will do the best we can, and the minister has certainly done a lot of work and he has convinced a lot of people in cabinet of the real need that is out there in this agricultural area.

1710

Mrs Fawcett: I am pleased today to participate in this debate on behalf of all of Ontario's farmers and of course in particular my own farmers in Northumberland. But I am rather saddened as well, because it just seems rather sad that we have to debate something that should be happening without the pleading.

The concerns being raised here today echo those from many involved in the agrifood business in Northumberland. Over this past summer, and as recently as this past Friday, I have met with and heard from groups representing the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, vegetable producers, grain and oilseed producers, dairy farmers and chicken producers and they all had the same message: "Please, what can you do to help? How can you help us make it to next year?"

Not in recent memory has the agrifood industry in Ontario been faced with such dramatic pressures that have already forced many of them out of business with more to follow. This threatens to shake the very foundation upon which our agriculture community was built. Should this happen, the ramifications will be felt province-wide, for the agrifood industry is responsible directly or indirectly for one in five jobs in Ontario. That is 20% of the entire workforce in the province. We just cannot overlook those facts. It is sad, whenever I am speaking to farmers, to see the desperate looks on their faces. I do not like seeing the tears in their eyes.

In Northumberland the agrifood industry is a major employer and has played a vital and important role in the local economies of many communities in my riding. That mirrors Ontario in general, where the agricultural industry is second in size only to the auto industry and continues to be the economic foundation for rural Ontario. All members of this House are aware of the plight of the farm families. Ontario producers are facing financial ruin. In a market that is already depressed, prices have fallen an additional 35% for corn, soybeans and wheat. Commodity prices for the livestock industry have been forced down by the linked grain and oilseed prices. Fruit and vegetable growers face continuing pressures from foreign imports under free trade.

Our farm groups are crying out for help. This is not the time to pass the buck to the federal Tory government. We have seen the Tories deal away the family farm in the free trade agreement and continue to bash farmers with the recent Mexico round. The feds have been unable to represent the agrifood industry at the GATT negotiations. Specifically, article XI could spell the death to many in the industry with the downfall of supply management.

But two wrongs never make a right and it is wrong to keep blaming someone else. Let's be leaders in agriculture in this province while we have the chance and show that we want and we need them. The government should flow some dollars to them now and help them so that then it can look at its long-range solutions. But right now we must keep them; otherwise this debate will be useless, because there will be very few left.

Just speaking of supply management, this government's record on supply management is somewhat of a mystery at times. On one hand they espouse the virtues of marketing boards and then just last week the minister okayed orders to the Ontario Chicken Producers' Marketing Board to reduce its prices 12 cents a kilo despite the appeals of the board. The chicken producers in my office on Friday are going to lose between $5,000 and $10,000 this year. That really cuts into their quality of life.

Mr Mancini: That was the minister's order?

Mrs Fawcett: Yes, it was the minister's order. Yet when the federal government has been willing to initiate a program to assist the farm community, this government has been unable or unwilling to go to the table for Ontario farm families. This government's inability to provide funding this year for NISA means not only a loss of provincial assistance but also a lower level of federal assistance under the terms of federal enhancements announced to the programs last spring. Immediate funding for NISA would result in over 50% more assistance in this year's payouts. Surely that slush fund must have some dollars somewhere.

This government's answer to the long-term financing has come in the form of the Hayes report, which of course has some very interesting and beneficial parts, but it in some ways really reflects the NDP's feeling for those in the agrifood business. Basically what it says to me is that the NDP government is saying to farmers, "Fund the financing yourselves." This government believes they could find 10,000 retiring farmers or outside investors to enrol in private mortgage schemes to replace the 10,000 farmers previously covered by the Ontario family farm interest rate reduction program.

Let's be realistic. To find retiring farmers or anyone else willing to receive below-market rates in order to allow the funds to be offered out for loans at lower-than-market interest rates will be very difficult, to say the least.

I say to the members opposite, especially those representing rural ridings, they should get the government's attention and make it put something concrete on the table for farmers today. If they do not, Ontario farmers will no longer be able to put food on the table for us, for Ontario families and for themselves.

The government's implementation of GRIP was a start, but it must find some money and fund NISA this year. They have to provide additional assistance under the farm income stabilization program. They should remove the so-called zero years from the crop insurance averages. They must ensure Ontario's farm interests are represented at the GATT negotiations.

This government cannot continue to ignore the plight of the agrifood industry. Their refusal to consult with farm groups on important issues like the new labour legislation and the environmental bill of rights has got to stop. Farmers and their families helped build this province. They want to continue to play a major role in our province's future. Without it, they are destined to failure. We must be there for them in their time of need, as they have always been there for us.

Mr B. Murdoch: I would like to be fair in this whole debate and mention that the farming problem did not start with this government getting elected. I am going to be fair with the honourable members on that, but they have had a whole year since they have been elected. They are the government and it is time they took over and showed some leadership and did something about this.

We have heard from the member for Essex-Kent all the things we have to do, but they are not doing it. Meanwhile, farmers are leaving the farm. I want to tell the honourable members a bit about up in my area in Grey county, right where I live. I can remember when I went to high school and every hundred acres there was a farmer, but now there is lucky to be two or three farmers left in that whole township, because there is no money in farming.

This government wants to talk about agriculture and how it has people running around the country telling the different counties they have to save this farm land for farming. I wonder who this government is going to save it for. If it does not do something pretty soon, there will not be anybody left.

The government threw the deal it had struck to help new farmers out the window. They just let that go. They said, "We can't help new farmers." They are probably right there. If they are going to start helping somebody get into something that is not going to work, that would not look too good either.

1720

I think of the times this government has come up to Grey county with OMAF and said to the planning department, "You can't build houses in that area because it is prime agricultural land." There are trees growing up and there are stones and everything else. Yet I drive home every week up through Heart Lake Road, probably some of the best farm land in Ontario, and there have to be new starts every week, singles. There are even severances. Agriculture and Food over here says: "Oh no, we are not going to allow any of those. We've got to keep this land so that we can keep producing."

I took a drive across from Heart Lake Road and went across the country the other day, and I noticed a corn field, a good crop of corn, yet all through the field there were roads and all the services they were putting in. Does the minister call that saving farm land? This is good farm land.

I go home and go to the severance committee and we have Agriculture and Food saying, "Oh no, we are objecting to that severance because it is prime agricultural land." They are going to have to get their priorities straight if they are going to do something up there.

We go back to the point that only 3% are farmers. If we look at all the people who derive their living from farming, there is a heck of a lot more than 3% -- I think it comes to around 20% -- so I do not think this is a debate about votes. They are not that stupid over there. They know there are at least 20% of the voters out there who need farming for a living.

The government's problem again is, how does it solve it? Where does it find the answer? Farmers cannot make a living without the proper price. Grants will not keep people farming. When we have certain areas that have drought and we need assistance, they are going to have to do that. There is no doubt in my mind that they are going to have to help the people of Essex and Kent and places where they have had problems with drought, but grants will not keep farmers farming for ever. They are going to have to come up with a price or they are just going to have to forget about farming in this area.

This is their job. They cannot just keep sticking it on somebody else and saying: "They won't get along with us. The federal government won't help us out." They are big people over there. They are grown up. They have to get on their own feet and start standing up for themselves and come up with the answers. That is what people elected them to do. That is what they tell us.

When they got elected they also told us: "We want to work with everybody. We want to work with the Liberals. We want to work with the Conservatives. We need your ideas." We have come up with an idea today, a real good solution, so I am looking forward to seeing them all vote for this.

When I came to this Legislature I was proud to come here and I was really happy to hear every one of them over there say: "We are going to work with you. We are all going to work together to solve problems." Now we have a problem. We have a solution here that will help. So when the vote comes today I am looking forward to seeing all the members opposite put their hands up and support it, because if they do not, they will have made a mockery of the whole system. They have stood over there for a year now telling us how they want to work together. Here is the chance to do something and try to find solutions for one of our industries that needs help real bad. I will be looking forward to seeing their hands come up in the air when this vote is taken later on.

The other thing I want to emphasize is that grants will not save farmers. Until we start getting a price for our product, we can forget about it.

Mrs Mathyssen: I am most anxious to participate in this debate because we have a very serious situation in agriculture. I am very pleased that the members opposite have noticed. Certainly the time has come for fairness, equity and economic renewal for all of Ontario, and that includes rural Ontario.

Last Saturday I had the pleasure of attending the annual fall fair in Ilderton. Ilderton is a village of about 400 people in the geographic centre of Middlesex county. The fair is a wonderful event that gives my constituents a chance to see old friends, to show people in the community the high quality of Middlesex farm production and to celebrate rural Ontario. The fair attracts about 5,000 people from a wide area around the village. The fair gave me the chance this weekend to set up a booth so that I was better able to talk to and meet with the farmers who make up my constituents. I wanted to hear their concerns and bring them back to Queen's Park.

There has been a wide diversity in Middlesex crop yields this year. Some of the crops have been excellent. The hours of hard work in the spring and summer and fall have resulted in some pretty good crops. Unfortunately that hard work and dedication has been met with poor commodity prices and returns well below the cost of that production. Other areas of Middlesex, primarily an area around Delaware township, have been hit by disastrous drought. There has been no reward for the hard work of these farmers in the Delaware area.

Tragically, for all the farmers, the ultimate results will not be all that different. Neither group will get the returns needed to meet the expenses incurred to put seed back into the ground.

As I previously mentioned, the Ilderton fair availed me of the opportunity to talk to Middlesex farmers and their families. Many of these farmers, whom we all depend on in Ontario for our food, have said they may not be around next spring. They have come to a point where many of them need immediate short-term help so that they will be in the fields next spring producing the safe, high-quality food we have come to expect, producing the food we need in Ontario to have the ability to feed ourselves and determine our own course, our own future. We cannot allow our farm sector to disappear and leave us dependent upon outside suppliers. We in this government understand the seriousness of that possibility and we are determined to avoid that possibility.

The members opposite would try to convince Ontarians that government members are not interested in or concerned about rural Ontario. We on this side know that nothing could be further from the truth. We on this side of the House are committed to rural Ontario, not just in the short term but also to finding solutions in the long term, like fair prices at the farm gate, stable funding so that farmers can plan for the future and a recognition ultimately of the importance of the agricultural sector.

Cabinet and caucus have made rural Ontario and the problems connected with agriculture a priority. There are 23 government MPPs from rural ridings, and we have created the rural advisory committee of caucus from this group of 23 because collectively we can find those solutions to a situation that has ravaged the farm community for 10 years. These were 10 lost years for the men and women of agriculture.

I would like to tell members a little bit about the effect of those years on the people in Middlesex, upon the farm families who depend on me. I met with a group of women, my neighbours, to hear their concerns in connection with how the 10-year struggle had affected their families. I heard about how they and their spouses had to leave the farms to find off-farm work so that they and their families could survive high interest rates and low commodity returns.

They talked about the effects of this economic uncertainty upon family life, the tension it creates for the providers, the uncertainty it creates for the children and the ultimate fear that the desperation could drive farmers into police standoffs or even to suicide, which could affect their neighbours, their friends, perhaps even their own families.

This is the measure of the human suffering that accompanies the economic suffering we are discussing here today. We are all aware that farmers have faced years of low prices, years of high interest rates, and now they face a free trade agreement that attacks the prices the horticultural sector can expect to receive for production.

These voices have to be heard. The time for trying to place blame, as so many in here have indicated, is over. It is long over and it is time to act.

This government has agreed to implement GRIP. It is willing to provide interim GRIP payments of over $93 million this fall, and the Ontario decision to enter NISA next year will allow producers to access over $30 million in special federal assistance through NISA this year.

We are listening to our constituents. We have heard them. We have communicated those concerns to caucus, to cabinet, to the Premier and to the Minister of Agriculture and Food, and our government is committed to fairness, equity and economic renewal. We are listening to those people because the economic renewal that we envisage for Ontario has to include the agricultural community.

1730

Mr Conway: I would like to join just briefly the debate led by the member for S-D-G & East Grenville on this matter of the state of the farm economy. I do not think there is anyone here who does not appreciate that the situation is serious and getting more so as each day passes.

I do not profess to understand the intricacies of this debate like some of my friends who are much closer to the agricultural debate than I am, though I can say in my part of eastern Ontario there are several hundreds of people who derive their livelihood in whole or in part from the agricultural sector, and those people have certainly been impressing upon me over the last number of years, quite frankly, that the situation is becoming ever more serious.

From what I can judge, listening to the various reports -- and again the farm economy in a place like Renfrew county is obviously not the same as it will be in counties like Kent, Oxford and Essex, some of the more thoroughly agricultural counties in western Ontario -- there are some factors that do concern me.

I have listened over the years to a number of governments talk about specific measures that they were going to undertake to alleviate the problems that the farm economy faced from time to time. It seems to me that in the debate at the present time the fundamental issue is prices. The data that have been advanced this afternoon, I think, make plain that one cannot imagine having any kind of a livelihood with the kind of commodity prices we are talking about, but the answer to that price question is very complicated.

I noticed on the weekend a very large group of farmers protesting in Paris, very upset about what is happening as a result of some aggressive tactics being pursued by some of the European countries with respect to prices. I was watching a public television program out of upper New York state the other day, and dairy farmers in New York state are very concerned about what is or is not happening to their price structure. So we sit in a situation that is not local to Ontario, but certainly is something we are facing nationally and internationally.

What I think the farmers of Renfrew county would want me to touch on this afternoon is one other aspect of this debate, and that is input costs. I was again struck the other day to read an article by Alan Freeman of the parliamentary bureau of the Globe and Mail, which report was contained in the Report on Business in the Globe and Mail of Thursday, September 12, 1991. He is reporting on an analysis prepared for the Canadian International Trade Tribunal which looked at the situation comparing Canadian fruit and vegetable processors vis-a-vis their American competitors. The article works through a very interesting accounting of the input costs on either side of the border.

I am not going to deal with that in any great detail this afternoon because certainly part of that touches on the holiest of holy ground, and that is supply management. I would, as a non-farmer, not be as impolitic as to venture into that area. But there is another aspect of input costs that I think we should be looking at and this report talks about it as well.

I was just asking my friend the member for S-D-G & East Grenville about some of these things. If you are a farmer in Renfrew or in Lanark, Hastings, the united counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, the kinds of costs you are really going to notice, among others, are what I will call the government-imposed prices: hydro, gasoline taxes and, to some extent, workers' compensation costs.

I know some people over there might think that I have gone completely starkers on this hydro bill, but when I talk to farmers in Renfrew county, as I did just a couple of weeks ago, and I have a dairy producer telling me what his hydro costs are in the here and now and he has read in Farm and Country or the Ottawa Citizen that those costs are going to increase by probably 40% over the course of the next three years, that farmer is absolutely distraught. He or she has nowhere to turn. When we in this Legislature debate energy and environmental policies, I hope we tie that debate and all the wonderful rhetoric that goes with it to the farm gate.

I am going to use Hydro as a very good example. When prices plummet and you cannot sell at any kind of advantage your soybeans or whatever else, and prices, as someone said here earlier today, are in constant dollars less than they were in the Dirty Thirties, and someone tells you that your hydro bill, which is absolutely essential, is going to increase by 15% this year, 13% next year and 17% the year after, what are you to do? Because you have no escaping. If you are a farmer in north Hastings, ably represented by my friend the Minister of Agriculture and Food, where do you turn? That is a cost that is unavoidable, it is inescapable and it is an essential service.

When someone stands up in this Legislature or somewhere else and says, "Oh well, but that is all in the name of conservation," I say to my friends opposite, what do they say to the farmer, who will be as interested as anyone in conservation, but if he is running a big dairy herd in Renfrew county, is going to be consuming thousands of dollars worth of electrical services, of necessity, over the course of a given year?

Similarly, when farmers in Renfrew county read this budget, and quite frankly when they looked at budgets introduced by my colleagues, but this budget is particularly noteworthy because in this budget we see a 30% increase in the gasoline tax and increases in the taxes that affect diesel fuels. That, my friends, has a direct, immediate, inescapable and burdensome effect on farmers. They have no choice. There is no TTC running around the farms of Eldon township in Victoria county.

If I were a farmer and I heard some of the arguments advanced in the name of supporting some of these policies, I would be enraged, not because I think some of the goals are not laudable -- clearly they are -- but if you are a rural resident in Kent county and your gasoline tax increases 30% and your hydro rate is going up 40% over three years, my comment and question is simply this: "What am I to do? If I live in Windsor, I have an alternative. If I live in Pembroke, I have an alternative. If I live in Eldon township, I have none. Don't ask me in the name of conservation or in the name of progressivity or in the name of equity to shoulder a disproportionate share of that burden."

I simply say to my friends that not only do all of us in this Legislature have to find a way to do this with NISA or that with GRIP -- I do not profess to understand the Byzantine corridors of those federal-provincial agricultural programs, but I expect that learned members of the farm caucuses on all sides will understand them better than I -- but we should not lose sight of the fact that there are government-imposed costs that touch very directly on this question. I cite those three: gasoline -- diesel as well -- workers' compensation costs, and hydroelectric costs that are going to have a great deal to say about any farmer's bottom line.

As I conclude my remarks this afternoon, there is one aspect I guess I would say to the farm community. There is a great deal of old Ontario wrapped up in this debate, and who could be opposed to the family farm and who could be opposed to some of the rhetoric we have heard flowing beautifully here this afternoon? But it seems to me we are going to have to be practical. My grandfather sat here for many years and one of his best friends was a very successful farmer from Glengarry. His name was Jim Sangster. I used to hear my grandfather say -- how did the old line go? -- Jim Sangster sat in the seat ahead, he heard the budget and he said, "We're broke." I think Jim Sangster's injunction of the mid-1930s may be applicable to the 1990s.

1740

Farmers I know in Renfrew county understand the straitened fiscal circumstances in which this government finds itself. Any government over there would face exactly the same situation. So we are going to be perhaps a little more tough-minded about the way in which we deliver whatever kind of aid will hopefully be forthcoming in the next few days in the name of the executive council.

I had a very unsatisfying debate with my farm leaders a few years ago around that infernal farm tax rebate program. I was the only person in my entire county who seemed to think there was a better way of doing it, and I lost. Some members may not remember this, but it is the OFA debate about the rebate, whether it should apply to working farmers or whether it applied to productive farm land. In my view -- I have not changed my view although I lost the battle -- I felt we should have moved, as we initially had wanted to move, to make that money, whatever it was -- because those moneys then as now are going to be finite -- go to the maximum extent to the working farmers.

It offended me quite frankly that my friend the then Attorney General, a gentleman farmer in Wellington county, was getting however many hundreds of dollars through that program. I was told of course that I did not understand, because the program really supposedly dealt with productive farm land, irrespective of who owned it. My concern is that whatever dollars we have, I want them spent to support the working farmers.

Mr Villeneuve: Mr Speaker, I am wrapping up. Would it be customary for me to do it now or wait until the government is done?

The Speaker: There is still some time remaining for the government to participate.

Mr Hansen: Representing the fruit lands of Niagara, there was one thing I said a week ago in the House, "No support, no farmers, no food." The thing is that the two programs, the GRIP program and the NISA program, would not address the problems of the fruit and vegetable growers in Niagara. I take it that my riding takes in actually all these other commodities, corn, wheat and the dairy industry, but if we came out with just this program, then it would leave out one of the most unique areas in Ontario, the fruit lands.

The Minister of Agriculture and Food met with the fruit farmers down there last week. There are some ideas we have been looking at and one is farm easements so that farmers can keep producing in those particular areas. But the thing is that the farmers down there are so desperate they are taking a look at severing one acre off their lots. As the minister already stated to the farmers in that area: "That is just short term. One year you sever one acre off and that means you have enough money to carry on for another year." In talking to them, we are looking at a more long-range program, not a very short-range program.

Free trade has hurt the fruit farmers down there quite a bit and this is one area where they have been hit since 1987. In 1987, when I ran, it was the same problem also. They were having problems. So over the last four years it has been a real problem.

Another thing too is that commodities coming in from the United States, like sour cherries, wound up having an impact on the sour cherry industry in our particular area. It is just luck this year that there was a frost in Michigan.

I see the clock is getting close to running out. There is I believe one more speaker.

As I say, representing Niagara, I have to take a look at all the farmers, not just a select group. The rest of the province does not have the uniqueness of the Niagara area. I have to stand up here today and say that all farmers need help, not just certain sections.

Mr Villeneuve: I really appreciate everyone participating in this debate this afternoon. I think it brings to the fore the very real problems that are actually unfolding and have unfolded in rural Ontario for the past six, seven or eight months.

Before I go a lot further, I want to emphasize a presentation that was made today, and it was touched upon by my colleague in the official opposition representing the county of Essex. It is a very professionally done paper, The Impact of the 1991 Drought. I think some of the statements in here bear repeating and emphasizing.

"Eight companies that supply agricultural needs in Essex county have at present $1,644,000 past due and outstanding in farm accounts that have balances of 90 days and over." That is a pretty significant figure right there. These are not banks. These are companies that provide fertilizers, seeds, herbicides, what have you, to supply the agricultural community.

Farmers pay their bills when it is at all possible. This says that there is well over $1.5 million outstanding in accounts 90 days and more past due. This same very well done report on agriculture and the impact of the 1991 drought says that the minimum amount -- I hope the parliamentary assistant and the Minister of Agriculture and Food hear this one -- to help them this year is in the area of $20 million, based on very depressed commodity prices, not based on the commodity prices of last year, two years ago or the average, but based on the real facts and figures of 1991.

So $20 million goes to support the drought conditions -- that is simply to give them a break-even point -- in Essex and Kent counties this year. I hope that as was mentioned by the Treasurer this afternoon, the Minister of Agriculture and Food does have the clout he claims to have in cabinet.

I was certainly pleased when I discussed with my leader, the member for Nipissing, the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, that we had to bring to the government, to the fore, the major calamities that are being faced by the depressed prices of grains and oilseeds and certainly some of the drought conditions that were faced by some of the tender fruit growers and those farmers in the sun parlour of Ontario.

I am very disappointed that quite a number of people, particularly from the government side, got up and said they could not support this motion. I will put it in a nutshell and I want them to reconsider before we go to a vote. We call "upon the Premier and cabinet to participate in the NISA program for this year and to introduce further measures to give Ontario producers at least the same protection for 1990-91 that they will have under the new safety net programs, in order to meet the commitments made by agriculture ministers at their meeting in Regina in March 1991." Therefore, this simply says that the Minister of Agriculture and Food for Ontario supports this motion and agreed to it in March 1991. Is it possible his colleagues today will stand and vote against him?

I ask government members to reconsider, those who said they could not support this, probably because it has the name of the member for Nipissing on it, the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party. They should think above politics. They should think support for agriculture. That is what they spoke of all afternoon, the great need out there, and they are not going to support this motion? I do not understand. If they want to play politics, they should say it. If they want to help farmers, they should support it. It is that simple.

In the Agenda for People -- I will just remind members of the Agenda for People, and we could go on for a lot longer than two minutes -- the NDP clearly promised a minimum of $100 million in new programs for agriculture. That was then, of course.

We have had no new announcements. We have had a rehash of the interest support program the previous government had in place. Indeed, the government actually only came up with $50 million when the previous government had at one point $100 million of support, reducing gradually as we got away from election time, and then I presume it would have found another one for the election.

However, I say to government members again that if they cannot support this motion, they are playing politics, pure and simple. They should help Ontario's agriculture and support this motion.

Mr Hayes: Who's playing politics?

Mr Villeneuve: Who is playing politics? That is what I am asking. Who is playing politics? We are looking to help. There is a statement here that says, "No support, no farmers, no food."

1750

The government members should have been in Cuba with the four members of the Progressive Conservatives and the four members of the Liberals who came and they would understand. I think there was a very good reason why the government members were cut off from attending Cuba at the last minute. They would have seen what a real socialist regime is like. Empty shelves, no food: that is what a real socialist regime is like and that is what Ontario is heading for.

In summation, the tax on tobacco products in Ontario is $1 billion a year. The Ministry of Agriculture and Food spends about $550 million a year, not only to administer but in support of farmers. Therefore there is $450 million just out of one tax, from agricultural producers, that goes into the government coffers and is distributed everywhere else but in agriculture.

I say to the government that it had better support agriculture now. They will not forget.

1757

The House divided on Mr Harris's motion, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes -- 36

Arnott, Bradley, Brown, Caplan, Carr, Chiarelli, Cleary, Conway, Cordiano, Cousens, Cunningham, Curling, Daigeler, Eves, Fawcett, Grandmaître, Harnick, Jordan, Mancini, Marland, McClelland, McLean, Miclash, Murdoch, B., O'Neil, H., O'Neill, Y., Phillips, G., Poirier, Poole, Runciman, Sola, Sterling, Tilson, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Wilson, J.

Nays -- 62

Abel, Akande, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Drainville, Duignan, Farnan, Ferguson, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Haeck, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson, Klopp, Kormos, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard, MacKinnon, Mackenzie, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, North, O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Pouliot, Rae, Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, Ward, B., Ward, M., Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson, F., Wilson, G., Winninger, Wiseman, Wood.

The House adjourned at 1801.