Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FOOD

CONTENTS

Tuesday 29 June 1993

Ministry of Agriculture and Food

Hon Elmer Buchanan, Minister

Neil Smith, director, land use planning branch

Merv Reynolds, manager, raw milk quality, resources and regulations branch

Ken Knox, assistant deputy minister, agriculture and rural division

Rita Burak, deputy minister

Dr Tom Baker, program manager, meat industry inspection branch

Rolly Stroeter, director, farm assistance programs branch

Keith Pinder, director, rural development secretariat

Bob Séguin, assistant deputy minister, policy and programs division

Norris Hoag, assistant deputy minister, research and laboratories division

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

*Chair / Président: Jackson, Cameron (Burlington South/-Sud PC)

*Acting Chair / Président suppléant: Murdoch, Bill (Grey PC)

*Vice-Chair / Vice-Présidente: Arnott, Ted (Wellington PC)

Abel, Donald (Wentworth North/-Nord ND

*Bisson, Gilles (Cochrane South/-Sud ND)

Carr, Gary (Oakville South/-Sud PC)

Elston, Murray J. (Bruce L)

*Haeck, Christel (St Catharines-Brock ND)

Jamison, Norm (Norfolk ND)

*Lessard, Wayne (Windsor-Walkerville ND)

Mahoney, Steven W. (Mississauga West/-Ouest L)

Ramsay, David (Timiskaming L)

*Wiseman, Jim (Durham West/-Ouest ND)

*In attendance / présents

Substitutions present/ Membres remplaçants présents:

Cleary, John C. (Cornwall L) for Mr Mahoney

Fawcett, Joan M. (Northumberland L) for Mr Ramsay

Klopp, Paul (Huron ND) for Mr Jamison

Murdoch, Bill (Grey PC) for Mr Carr

Clerk / Greffière: Grannum, Tonia

The committee met at 1528 in committee room 2.

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FOOD

The Chair (Mr Cameron Jackson): The committee will continue with the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. When we completed last week, we had stood down the 30 minutes of response time allocated to the minister. He has indicated that he is prepared to respond to the first round of questions that were raised in the opening statements, and then it would be my intention, as the Chair, to begin the rotation with the official opposition, then the government party, for 20 minutes each, and then back to the Liberals. Then we'll be on regular rotation since, as a courtesy, the committee allowed the third party to do its questioning.

With that understanding in mind, Minister, welcome. Please proceed.

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Thank you, Mr Chairman. What I thought we might do with the time that you've allocated is to run through responses to some of the questions that were put last week. Noble Villeneuve is not with us, so I thought maybe I'd try and deal quickly with his questions and then deal with some of the other members' questions, as well, who are here.

There are a number of questions, I think. There were 40 or 50 questions put, so I'll try and deal with them briefly. We've got staff here. In some cases you may want to ask a follow-up, and if you want to follow up we'll get staff certainly involved.

One of the first questions Mr Villeneuve asked was whether or not I was planning to meet with the groups from the Centralia and New Liskeard agricultural colleges. We have established a formal meeting with the coalition from New Liskeard, which is going to take place on July 12. Staff met with the coalition group last night. There was a previous meeting on May 14, in fact, to talk to that group.

Staff at this point have met with the Friends of Centralia back on May 20, and my parliamentary assistant from Huron has met with a couple of different groups from Centralia that have some proposals they would like us to consider. It is our expectation that I will be meeting with some of the people, along with my PA, and talking to the people from Centralia when they have some ideas. However, up to now the member for Huron has been the lead in terms of consulting and meeting with the group from Centralia, since that particular college is in his riding.

I would like to reiterate again, though, one more time for everyone, it's not our intention to reverse the decision on Centralia and New Liskeard, but we are willing to sit down and discuss the options for maintaining the research aspect of both of those colleges. Quite frankly, the letters and the comments we've received from both areas have tended to focus on the research. There aren't that many people who are still calling for the colleges themselves to remain open.

I think that's a positive approach from the people who live in those areas. We certainly recognize the significant economic impact that the closure will have, but we do want to maintain the agricultural component. We're concerned about the vet lab services at Centralia, and of course there are lots of questions around that move, which at this point in time is projected to go to Ridgetown. I know there have been some questions in the House and other places about that, but that at the moment is the plan.

Noble also asked about the litigation. I think you all know that there is a class-action lawsuit being proposed. The motion for that was heard on June 28, which I guess was yesterday, and it's expected to be concluded on Friday. The Attorney General is representing the province before the courts on that issue. I don't really want to comment too much more on that at this point in time, but we expect that to be wrapped up and dealt with by Friday.

The next question Mr Villeneuve put -- and this, I know, is of interest to the member for Cornwall as well -- is the question of ethanol and what support the ministry will give to that particular industry.

A few brief comments: First of all, we're very pleased that United Co-operatives of Ontario Petroleum is expanding the distribution of ethanol-blended fuels into eastern Ontario, and there are a number of openings in various service stations that are happening over the next few weeks. I think that is a positive response.

I am aware that there are a number of people interested in investing in ethanol plants. At this point in time there is no money. I think that was a question that the member for Cornwall put, which I'll get to maybe in more detail in a minute. There's no immediate pot of money that's set aside for ethanol; however, what the industry has asked of myself is some assurance that the current exemption for provincial sales tax and federal excise tax could be put in place so it will be lasting, so it's not something that's here today and may disappear tomorrow.

If the people are going to invest money in ethanol they don't want to have that exemption lifted, and I want to assure people that we are discussing that with treasury fairly aggressively and we're also discussing it with the federal government to see if we can't put something on paper that will have some staying power so that people who wish to invest will know that that exemption will be maintained. I believe they're asking for some 10 years' exemption. I assume that there's some negotiability in that. But I continue to believe in the ethanol industry and we'll be doing what we can, given our fiscal situation.

I'm certainly aware that the Seaway Valley group is still interested and has done a study, and I want to get on with that and do what we can, but I think at this point in time it's the continued exemption that we're focusing on. If we can deal with that issue, I think we can get to the next stage, which may be the construction of a facility.

The next question that Mr Villeneuve had was on the farm tax rebate and what our thoughts were on that. I certainly do not have to be told of the importance of that farm tax rebate program, how important it is to the farming community. It was under some pressure, again, as everyone realizes in the province. We were able to maintain it as a frozen level, which is perhaps not the most desired, but at least it's better than some of the other ideas that people were putting to me.

We hope that the Fair Tax Commission can come up with some ideas which will solve that problem. I certainly accept the fact that this is not a fair tax and that people are getting their money returned; I do not dispute that argument. However, we have to live with the system as it is. That particular program is in my budget and we have to try and maintain it and do what we can. The issue is under review and certainly being studied. We recognize the fact that if it's frozen indefinitely it will cause problems in future years, and we certainly have to address that issue.

The next question that Mr Villeneuve had was on agricultural easements. Everyone knows that we are studying it in the Niagara region. I have supported the concept; the Premier has supported the concept. There's a pricetag of some $20 million over five years. That would only protect about 2,000 acres in tender fruit land, which could be done as a pilot project, and I'd be interested in hearing what other people have to say on that. Personally, I've supported it and the Premier is on record, as well, as supporting it. There are some people in the rural communities and in the planning departments around the province who think that the program is not necessarily the best one for Niagara, but I continue to believe that it's a start, it's a beginning, and something that I'm prepared to pursue, knowing that we're in tough times. I'm probably not going to get the money this year, although I'm still working on it.

Another question that was put was the details on our position on NAFTA. I don't want to take a lot of time on NAFTA. I could talk for the rest of the afternoon on it, but I won't. I don't think I have to reiterate the government's position on NAFTA. I accept the fact that the agriculture and food industry in the province is somewhat split on the issue. I certainly recognize that some producers believe that there are some benefits to be had. I also am aware, especially in the horticultural sector, there are some real dangers in pursuing the NAFTA as it's currently written and apparently going to be implemented, given that Mexico and the US may in fact approve it. I continue to believe that we should pursue trade liberalization through the GATT, although it's not perfect either, but it would be better to have a more diverse trade policy.

Mr Villeneuve also asked a question on the landslide issue and what our role was in that. I think that question was covered more or less last week.

The question of community economic development was also raised. The government of Ontario is quite interested in pursuing community economic development. As the Minister of Agriculture and Food with a keen interest in rural Ontario, I believe that we need to do a lot more for rural Ontario, and community economic development is one of the routes that we should go to that end. There's been a new program announced in the budget -- it was one of the few new programs the Jobs Ontario Community Action, which is a $300-million, three-year program. Some of that money is going to be targeted for rural Ontario and I look forward to working with different groups in rural Ontario and with people from other parties, members from other ridings, as to how we can get this program up and running, make people aware of it so they can tap into it. It's not a big amount of money.

It's not intended, I might add, as a grant program. I think that the days of the grant programs are numbered, quite frankly, from all levels of government. We need to look at loan programs. We need to look at programs that will help communities to help themselves.

1540

To that end, the Minister of Municipal Affairs a couple of weeks ago introduced a bill into the House, which hopefully will be passed in the fall, that will set up the community bond corporation and also a share capital corporation which will allow people in communities to put money into a fund that will be reinvested for community development projects and also for private small business. I think many of us have heard from small businesses that are having trouble accessing credit. We believe that these two funds are going to provide some of that credit for small businesses in rural Ontario and allow us to create more jobs in rural Ontario and ultimately to help farmers in that whole rural component of our society.

Another question that Mr Villeneuve asked was around the stockyards. I think that was raised by a number of the members on the committee. His question dealt with eastern Ontario farmers who, I am certainly aware, are going to be more negatively impacted, perhaps, than other farmers in other parts of the province. We believe that there are sufficient community sales barns in eastern Ontario to deal with the livestock, although the perception is that they've traditionally used the stockyards in Toronto more than other producers across the province.

There is a trust fund that will be set up which will be built up over years from the lease of properties at the site. We will sit down and discuss with producer groups and farm organizations how that money should be used and invested. One of the things I would like to see -- if there's a need for more sales barns capacity in eastern Ontario or elsewhere, I would expect that some of that money could be allocated for that project.

I might comment further, as it's somewhat of a current item, that there was a newspaper article, I believe it was this week. It had my picture on the article. That was the only part of that article that I had anything to do with. It was not quoting me; it was not quoting a ministry source. It talked about new stockyards north of Toronto. I don't know where the story came from. The sheep producers were quoted, in talking to UCO, one of the commission firms from the stockyards, about the idea or the concept of having a new stockyard. They talked about having a board to run it which sounds an awful lot like the current stockyards board.

I want, before anyone asks, to tell you that is not in our plans. I am interested in closing the book out on the government of Ontario running stockyards. We are allowing the private entrepreneurs to take that business over. If there are people who are interested in investing in another yard north of Toronto, that's great. It would help the sheep producers, I recognize, who have been impacted more than others. But I want to let you know that is not something we did any press release on or made any promises around.

The next series of questions on my pile is from the member for Grey, Mr Murdoch. He asked about the severance situation in Grey county and how it compared with other counties. In May 1991 -- it's a significant date, I know, in the mind of the member for Grey -- the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the Ministry of the Environment came in and took over some of the aspects of planning and applications for severances in Grey county. At that point, there had been an increase of 650% in the number of applications between 1986 and 1989. The interministry team has been working there in order to develop a more effective review process.

The number of applications for severances in 1992 was down at 249. The recession obviously has some impact on that, but that situation we believe is quite comparable with what's happening in other counties.

Of the 51 districts and municipalities that we monitor, there were eight counties, including Grey, which had more than 200 applications in 1992. Grey was in a grouping of eight counties or districts that had more than 200 applications. They're not alone, but they are at the upper end of the scale in terms of applications.

We are continuing to monitor the situation in Grey. I happen to believe, in talking to the member and others, that things are under control. I believe there are certainly some glitches there and some concerns, but things are working much better than they were.

Neil Smith, who is with us today from land use planning, I think could probably talk a little bit more -- I know the member for Grey has a very serious interest in this -- in terms of the technical aspects of planning in Grey and how it compares with other counties.

The Chair: Mr Smith, I believe you've been introduced, so please proceed.

Mr Neil Smith: In terms of the official plan, as you know, part of the problem we've had in Grey county is that the official plan, in all fairness, didn't do a very good job of defining which lands were good agricultural lands and which lands were not. We're pleased that the county has now hired a consultant and is working on a new official plan. We've been working with them, and hopefully that's one part of the problem we can deal with. There are certainly lots of areas in Grey county that there really isn't a need to protect for long-term agricultural use.

The Chair: Are you offering a supplementary?

Hon Mr Buchanan: Yes, I am.

The Chair: The minister's invited you to cross-examine Mr Smith.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): It's good to hear that you're working and that there are some areas where agriculture doesn't need protecting. We've been trying to get that message across for quite a while and I'm glad to see it's finally sunk in.

Do you want to go on the second one? It's the same thing, Elmer. I'm sure he's in this --

Hon Mr Buchanan: The second one?

Mr Murdoch: Yes.

Hon Mr Buchanan: Why don't you just reiterate your question so that he can answer it directly?

Mr Murdoch: As you know, Sydenham is trying to develop a zoning bylaw and it's come up with the 50 acres and your ministry has objected to this now and may take it to the OMB. Is there anything we can work out on this? Because 50 acres can be farmed, and then again it can't be. It's pretty hard to define what acreage you should have for farming. They're very concerned in Sydenham. There's also one in Bruce county that's being objected to at the same time. We've been asked for a long time to try to get zoning in and now they're trying to work something out and everybody seems quite happy with it, but lo and behold, Ag and Food comes along and says, "No, no, no, now; we've got to watch this 50-acre thing." Can you help us there or what?

Mr Smith: Yes. I think the two townships you're referring to are Sydenham and Keppel.

Mr Murdoch: No, Keppel's in Grey, too. I haven't heard of Keppel, but there is one in Bruce too that's been objected to, but I can't remember which one it was. But Sydenham's my home township.

Mr Smith: In planning for the various zones in a municipal official plan, they establish a minimum lot size. In the case of residential lots in the countryside, it's often based on a minimum lot size to put in a septic tank; you need a certain area.

From an agricultural point of view, according to the Food Land Guidelines, which is the provincial policy, as well as the Grey-Owen Sound official plan, it talks about a lot size being large enough for flexibility and viability of future farm operations.

What we do when we look at those kinds of policies, which are quite general, and try to apply them to a local situation is that we look at, what is the typical situation there now? If you're in a Holland Marsh situation, a typical size may be 15 to 20 acres. We found in those townships that the parcels were larger than 100 acres on average. We felt that 50 therefore wasn't a reasonable size.

I would add that also in Grey county there's an OMB hearing going on in Euphrasia township. Actually, the hearing was yesterday, and it was the same issue. The county and the township had proposed 100 acres, on average, and we felt that 50 therefore wasn't a reasonable size.

1550

I would add that also in Grey county there's an OMB hearing going on in Euphrasia township. Actually, the hearing was yesterday and it was the same issue. The county and the township had proposed 100 acres and we as the Ministry of Agriculture and Food supported them at the hearing.

I thought the two farmers who testified in support of 100 acres probably said it best when they said, "In Grey county, it's such that if you go to 50 acres" -- and you'd probably know a lot better than I would, being from Sydenham township -- "probably only about 30 of those are tillable and therefore when you get down to 30 acres you're really reducing the capability of that parcel to be farmed for large machinery and other things."

Anyway, to conclude, in terms of whether we can work anything out, the township and the county have been in contact with us and we plan to meet and hopefully resolve this before it goes to the Ontario Municipal Board.

Mr Murdoch: Yes, because that's going to cost both a lot of money, and there's no need for it. As long as you're working on it, I'll leave it in your capable hands.

Hon Mr Buchanan: Mr Murdoch also had a question on conservation authorities and the overlap. I don't think we need to discuss the problem further. I would add that the Ministry of Natural Resources has been working with the Ministry of Environment and Energy and ourselves to look at the overlap and work with the conservation authorities of Ontario to look at how we could reduce overlap, what their functions should be in the future, and there are ongoing discussions. We certainly accept and I certainly accept the fact there is a significant overlap that needs to be addressed and we will attempt to do that.

Bill 162 works against the diversification of agriculture. Mr Murdoch asked what we planned to do about it. We have been working on a bill which would be a livestock industry diversification act. We believe this will be a companion piece to Bill 162, the Game and Fish Amendment Act. We would expect if Bill 162 is to be approved that we will be looking at bringing that bill forward to be passed as well, which will deal with the diversification which we accept as viable and in some cases maybe more viable than some of the traditional agricultural operations. We support that and see that this should be part of 162 if it comes forward.

The final question from Mr Murdoch dealt with the Sewell report. At this point in time, neither the ministry nor the government has had a chance to respond to all of the recommendations. They are very numerous.

I guess my very early assessment is that if counties, municipalities, have good planning people and mechanisms in place, if we were to adopt all the recommendations and go forward and with what's in there, a lot of the decisions would be made at the local level. If you don't have that planning department and so on, which is the case in many of the rural municipalities, then the province would still be very much involved.

We're going to have to take a look at what the recommendations are and how they fit and how they balance across the province before I sort of agree or disagree totally with Sewell. I think there were some things in the report that we certainly endorse and other things that we would have to take a second look at before I come out and say, "Yes, this is a great idea."

He did say, I would add, that class 1, 2 and 3 land should be protected for agriculture only, with the only exemptions being given to villages, towns and cities which were adjacent and which needed that land, absolutely had to have that land in order to expand, with no alternatives for expansion.

I certainly would support the preservation of class 1, 2 and 3 land. Then we need to get on with how we allow development in other parts of rural Ontario and other kinds of land that would speed it up, which I think is what Sewell was trying to do.

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): I don't understand the procedure here. I have some questions on that specific point.

The Chair: When the procedure was announced, we indicated this is the minister's time. The minister is responding to questions that were raised. Should the minister feel obliged to yield any of that time, he can do so. But when the minister has completed his --

Mr Wiseman: I got you.

The Chair: You got it? Great. Please proceed, Minister.

Hon Mr Buchanan: Next in my pile here are the questions from the member for Northumberland, Ms Fawcett. The first question was on the budget reduction of OMAF. Her question was, why was that larger than other ministries? I have a chart which shows the expenditure control plan reductions across different ministries.

If we look at the budget projections for 1993-94 and then look at the reductions, the lowest percentage cutback on the expenditure control plan was Consumer and Commercial Relations, which was 1.5%, the reason for that being that it tends to be a regulatory ministry that regulates elevators and a number of other things. It's very difficult to cut back on mandated inspections and the things they do. They tend to be a regulatory ministry.

The next up the line was the Solicitor General and Correctional Services, a 2% cut. They run the prisons and the police. Again, there's a limit to how much you can cut back in that area.

Community and Social Services was 3.4%. Part of the reason there is because social assistance was hard to cut back significantly.Finance was at 4.6%. I can't give you an answer why they got off so lightly. I'll move on to Health with a cut of 5.8%, again an attempt to try to maintain health services. Education and Training was at 6.2%, the AG's office was at 7.4% and then we were next at 8.9%.

Then you move up the scale, up as high as 15% for Management Board. Intergovernmental Affairs was 14.9%. The Labour ministry took 14.2%, Environment and Energy 13.9% and Natural Resources 13.2%.

If you look at it from what the budget projections were for 1993-94 and what the cut was, at 8.9% we didn't take any more than some of these other ministries which would be similar in nature. I do agree that it was significant. I'll try to defend myself on the farm tax rebate issue, which is the question of this. If you take that out, obviously it increases the percentage. I know that's a numbers game and I understand the principle, but that program is part of my ministry and we have to take cuts on a percentage basis. It comes out and I have to live with that.

I think in terms of percentages we didn't fare as badly perhaps as some people are concerned. Obviously, I was concerned with the size of it, but --

Interjection.

Hon Mr Buchanan: Yes, sure. Okay. The next question was on the farm tax rebate program. The focus of this question was to eliminate the uncertainty. Again, I would suggest that I'm hoping the Fair Tax Commission answers. Again, I'm aware of the importance of the program. We are looking at alternatives to that and how it might be administered. I know there are lots of ideas about changing it.

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): Any time lines as to when you might be looking at changes? Can we expect it in the next --

Hon Mr Buchanan: We're sort of committed to the freezing for this year and next year. We hope to be able to have something in place then subsequently to replace or to change it so that we get out of this year-to-year thing. I understand in the farm community it's difficult not knowing what it is, because it's always mentioned as a potential cut. I recognize the need to do that.

The next question I had was whether the other colleges can handle the students. With the numbers we currently have, there is no problem in doing that. The New Liskeard program is going to carry on this year. The first-year people will go there. They will have to agree to the fact that they would go to another institution the following year. The biggest program at New Liskeard is the equine program. At the moment, the plan is to have that go to Kemptville, although I know there have been people asking questions about that.

The next question was regarding the consideration of correspondence courses. We have supported independent study programs out of the University of Guelph. I would add, though, that we are looking at moving them a little closer to user-pay so that the cost is reflected in the fees for them as opposed to a subsidy, which makes it easier to offer more if we recover the cost of running those. There may be some opportunity to expand those kinds of courses in the future, and I think the question is important in that context. It's something we should look at. We have to look at different ways of offering extension courses, and with the advent of computers and other things, it's much easier to do those kinds of courses and it's something we are interested in.

1600

The next question was on Sewell. I think I've touched on that. I won't repeat that.

The next question was on a review of the stable funding legislation being made mandatory. That would require changing the act as it's currently constituted one more time.

Mrs Fawcett: I think one word.

Hon Mr Buchanan: One word: "may" to "shall"?

Mrs Fawcett: That it "may."

Hon Mr Buchanan: I've said this before in terms of the existing bill, that if there's a need to review it, it would be my understanding that whoever the farm leaders are will be asking for that and that whoever the minister is would respond to that if there's a need for review. If it's not working, obviously it's in everyone's interest to review it and look at what other options should be.

The reason for three years is to give it a chance to work. Something like this you can't necessarily assess after one year and say, "It's a great program." We think three years will give it a fair chance. My option is to prefer to leave in the words "may review" it or "consider the review" as opposed to "shall review."

The environmental bill of rights, the impact on agriculture: We tried to facilitate as much input from the agriculture and food groups as possible. I remember that once it was announced that an environmental bill of rights was coming, one of the first things we did was convene a group of people on the agricultural side as an advisory group. We subsequently brought together a group of food industry people, again to act as an adviser, so they had input. Once the bill was first brought out, there was another group and it had feedback.

We do not think the impact is going to be that significant. The Farm Practices Protection Act certainly is going to remain in force and will be part of the loop before people would go to the bill of rights in terms of seeking any court action.

The other thing I would add is that the environmental bill of rights can only be used if the farmer is breaking an existing law. It's not that you don't like the farmer or you don't like the smell of their fields. You have to be doing something that's against the law before anybody can drag you into court. Early on, some farmers were concerned that the neighbours might be dragging them into court under this legislation, and that's not the way it works. They would have to be doing something that's clearly breaking some existing law before the bill of rights would cause any difficulty.

I think the work that's been done since this concept was announced just after we formed the government, the farm groups that have come together and worked on the environmental farm plans in a voluntary sense, is a very positive move. As far as I'm concerned, it demonstrates the fact that farmers are concerned with the environment, they're interested in doing something about it, they have a plan and they're doing it voluntarily. I think that augurs well, and I do not feel that the bill of rights is going to adversely affect them in the medium term.

Thank you, Mr Chairman.

The Chair: I note that the minister still has several additional replies. It's appreciated that he's come prepared to respond to those, but perhaps they can occur in the process of the rotation. If that's the case, I'd like to move now into the regular rotation. We're going to try 20-minute segments, and we'll begin with the official opposition.

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): One thing I touched on partially last time is the dairy inspectors. That issue continues to raise eyebrows and anger at the minister's decision to eliminate on-dairy inspectors.

Just this past weekend I was approached by a milk marketing board member. They tell me that not only was the Ontario Milk Marketing Board not consulted beforehand about this decision but also that it remains largely in the dark about how you intend to address any potential problems. I've asked the minister several times in the Legislature how many dairy inspectors will be eliminated while seeking assurance that Ontario's superior milk quality standards will not be jeopardized by the cutback.

I'm still not definitely sure and the residents who contact me are still not sure how many dairy inspectors are left. I guess I'll have to question you again, Minister. Exactly how many dairy inspectors are there now and how many do you intend to lay off? I hope the minister will be able to provide these two simple numbers. Did you want to answer that?

Hon Mr Buchanan: Do you want me to?

Mr Cleary: Yes.

Hon Mr Buchanan: I've tried it a couple of times. We have Merv Reynolds, who's manager of the raw milk quality resources and regulations branch. Since my last two answers didn't work, maybe I'll ask him to respond and you can go from there.

Mr Merv Reynolds: There are currently 11 dairy inspectors left with the raw milk quality program in the regs and resources branch. One individual is located in Thunder Bay, and he'll have the added responsibilities of dairy plant inspection and dairy plant audit. Of the remainder, all inspectors will have on-farm responsibilities. One will be located in North Bay, five in western Ontario and four in eastern Ontario.

There was a meeting held with the deputy minister, the chairman of the milk marketing board and other representatives shortly after the announcement, I guess to document the fact that there would be a plan forthcoming to the industry on how problems would be dealt with down the road. That plan has come into effect.

We met with two representatives of the milk marketing board on June 18, and John Karn, one of its managers, to give it our synopsis of what would happen in the future. They have taken that back to review with their board.

We've outlined a new set of priorities and protocols. The safety of the milk and dairy products will be the primary focus, which means the inhibitor follow-up testing program will remain our top priority.

Responding to the results of other quality tests performed at the Guelph laboratories will be guaranteed only to those producers who request assistance. Over the years, the producers have become familiar with corrective measures in terms of milk quality program. For example, if they get a high bacteria count, they know the sorts of things to look at on their own. We plan to use form letters to send to them to remind them of those things. In any event, if they have difficulty locating the source of their problems, they can always phone us and we will make a visit to the farm.

Bear in mind also that there are others available in the industry to assist producers. Thinking specifically of high somatic cell count problems, I saw ourselves as being only the catalyst; the people who are really responsible for helping producers are more in the line of veterinarians, equipment dealers, the Ontario Milk Marketing Board and udder health technicians, just to name a few.

Mr Cleary: Having known over a number of years some of the problems that can happen in the production of milk, I want to say that the minister had stated in the Legislature that "Milk quality remains a priority," and, "If there should be any problem, there are other inspectors who may be able to pick up the extra work." I must ask if anyone else other than a provincial government employee is legally able to implement the regulations of the Milk Act. As well, I am wondering the exact identity and expertise of these unnamed inspectors to whom the minister has previously alluded in the Legislature.

1610

Mr Reynolds: To answer that question, I don't see our requiring other inspectors to help us. Some of the things I've thought of are that producer numbers are declining. In the past, I think routine inspections of farms have been one of the priorities of the branch. Quality follow-ups were another thing. I think it will be up to our 11 individuals to continue this responsibility, and I don't really foresee at this point in time very much problem in doing that.

The number of quality problems that are evidenced by test results at the laboratory in Guelph is around perhaps 200 a month. Spread over the number of producers, it boils down to about 20 per 1,000 producers. If we have an inspector in an area to serve those 1,000 producers -- and we're dealing with those who call to request assistance. Again, I don't think too many are going to call us to ask for help; I think they know enough about their own operations to be able to implement corrective measures on their own, or they may choose to phone a veterinarian or someone else to give them assistance.

As far as who is able to legally administer the act is concerned, regulation 761 under the act, we're the only ones who can do that.

The quality penalty program is in place to encourage producers to continue to produce high-quality milk, and I think they're very good at doing that.

Mr Cleary: Thank you. I'm not totally satisfied and I'm not sure I can explain it to the farmers who approach me, but anyway, I'll get on with something else.

Groundwater is another critical matter for farmers. I find it very interesting that industry is one of the biggest users of water, while among the smallest users are the farmers, but they are expected to preserve water quality and also to pay more than some of the city dwellers.

It is my understanding that various departments, although not necessarily in a coordinated effort, including the Ministry of Environment and Energy, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and the Ontario Water Well Association are each reviewing farmers' activities around water sources. I have to be frank about this. Farmers are as interested in and determined for the preservation and protection of water and its sources as well as anyone else, so my question is, would the minister clearly state his intentions for the regulation of recharged wells.

Hon Mr Buchanan: I'm going to ask Ken Knox, the assistant deputy minister, to have a go at this.

While he's thinking about what he's going to say, as I'm sure you are well aware, there was a joint survey done in terms of wells and the quality of wells in rural Ontario, particularly on farms, and there's a significant amount of contamination. That survey did not get widespread publicity, although there was some, certainly. We do not have the lead responsibility when it comes to water, but we obviously have some concerns and work with farmers and so on around water quality. That's what the land stewardship II program was partially about.

With those introductory remarks, I will let Ken Knox try to fill in the blanks.

Mr Ken Knox: There are ongoing discussions with the farm organizations. The environmental farm plan is an initiative that they've put forward, and one of the components of that is to ensure that farmers are doing what they can to provide that there isn't contamination of groundwater. So there's discussion that's happening there.

We are arranging a meeting with the well drillers' association to find out if we can work cooperatively to give counsel to farmers. One of the areas that's a big concern is old wells which are abandoned. They provide a good conduit of material that we might not want in the groundwater source down into the groundwater, so we're going to be encouraging farmers to do what they can to eliminate those old wells. There may be some capping procedures, and the well drillers' association is going to be working with us discussing with us and the farm organizations to determine what steps might be done to encourage farmers to do that.

I'm not sure if there was additional information that might be required for that question, so I'd be glad to try and provide it.

Mr Cleary: There are incidents of different residents that I've met with where their farm is on a potential water supply for many towns. I guess what they're very discouraged about is at some of the meetings when decisions are being made, the Ministry of Agriculture doesn't have much say there, and sometimes there isn't even a representative at the meeting.

Mr Knox: This would be an area where there is an aquifer on a farm that is providing water or potentially providing water to --

Mr Cleary: Exactly.

Mr Knox: The Ministry of Agriculture and Food doesn't have a specific role in assisting municipalities to determine what their water source is and they may make arrangements with local farmers to provide water and there's negotiation. I understand there's one issue in eastern Ontario which has been going on for some time and the negotiations have been quite difficult, but there isn't a role for us as a ministry, from a regulatory standpoint, to be involved in assisting a farmer negotiate with a municipality for that water source.

I would suspect there have been some negotiating meetings go on where in fact we haven't been represented, but I know our field staff are quite interested and, to the extent that they can assist farmers in their own cultural practices, we have been picking up a more predominant role in that area.

Mr Cleary: Do I have more time?

The Vice-Chair (Mr Ted Arnott): Mr Cleary, you have a minute and a half. One quick question.

Mr Cleary: One thing that I have to bring up: I guess the minister's well aware of Ben Berendsen. To briefly backtrack, a private company with a contract with the Ontario Ministry of Transportation buried a pile of used asphalt close to a water well which later became Mr Berendsen's farm. Tests show a number of contaminants in Mr Berendsen's water that are very seriously affecting his dairy herd and his milk production.

Some time ago the government promised to help Mr Berendsen if he could prove the water was contaminated, which I am told has been done. I am told that local health officials and the Ontario Milk Marketing Board have now even refused to accept his milk. I am told that. However, both provincial ministries of Environment and Ag and Food are refusing to admit that anything is wrong, and they are not honouring their past commitments, I am told. I have even heard that the dairy inspection branch had said that it does not matter if there are any chemicals in Mr Berendsen's milk, because when mixed with other milk, it becomes diluted to the point that it's insignificant. This hardly seems an appropriate position. I am told this.

At this time I ask the minister to clearly put on the record his opinion on the contamination, whether the minister believes Mr Berendsen should receive assistance from the provincial government and exactly what action is being taken.

Hon Mr Buchanan: First of all, just let me correct whoever told you that the dairy inspection branch talked about the dilution of any chemical. That is absolutely false. The dairy inspection branch and the milk marketing board obviously have been monitoring the situation very carefully and working as cooperatively and trying to be as helpful as possible, but they have not made any such comments. This is a delicate matter, Mr Chairman, as I'm sure you're aware, given the fact that the farm in question is in your county.

1620

The Ministry of Environment was supplying water because there were some problems with the water. They eventually decided that the tests that were done did not show any contamination and they decided to cut the water off. I was drawn into the picture and, primarily on humanitarian grounds, decided that we would put money in to supply water until such time as it could be proved or disproved that there was contamination and where it was coming from.

Once all the tests were in and so on, we came to the conclusion that we're not going to supply water any further and have advised Mr Berendsen of his legal opportunities and recourse in order to address the situation. At this point in time, I'm not sure whether he has chosen to do that or not. His milk is still being accepted, the last I heard, which was last week. Things are carrying on; I believe he's still getting water from off-site.

I would hope that the issue could be resolved; this has been around for some time. The concern about the asphalt, which everyone seems to agree is buried somewhere under his operation -- and we have tried to be helpful and we've now given Mr Berendsen our best advice on what future action he could take.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you for your answer. It is a sensitive question and, being in the chair, I'm unable to ask questions at this time. The Liberal time has expired and now we move to the government caucus. Mr Bisson.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): A couple of questions. As you know, Mr Minister, on a number of occasions we've discussed some of the agricultural issues within my riding, I guess in fairly good detail, especially during our time together on the NAFTA committee, and I think you understand some of the unique problems in agriculture, especially in northern Ontario, with regard to climate, proximity of markets etc.

The first question I would have is an old question around veterinary issues with regard to the communities of Matheson and Iroquois Falls. I guess the problem is basically this: The farming community around those two particular communities doesn't offer enough business for a vet to be able to operate a full-time business and make a livelihood out of just dealing with animals off the farm.

Conversely, the whole question of how much business is available with regard to people's pets is also not quite enough to be able to keep them going. So they formed, after the last vet left -- I guess some two or three years ago the vet who was up in the area left the community. He was operating a practice out of actually the corrections institution in Monteith. A committee was put together. Oh, God, a lot of work was put into trying to find a vet to come into our community to be able to service the agricultural community of Monteith, Iroquois Falls and Matheson.

Finally they got somebody. A very fine gentleman, and his wife, moved into our community and started to provide that service but he has difficulty trying to make ends meet. He had to buy equipment in order to staff that particular office because most of the equipment that was in there was taken away when the other vet left. Basically the new vet who's coming in has got very high overhead with regard to the equipment that he has. He doesn't have quite enough business in order to make the kind of livelihood that he expects to make as a vet.

I guess the question I would have is that we're sort of at our wits' end. We've tried to deal with different ministries, including yours, in order to see if there's something that we can do to help offset the cost of those materials or try to offset in some way the overall costs of that office. I am just wondering if you can sort of help us out with that in any kind of way.

Hon Mr Buchanan: Yes, there is a designated area, that program, which provides a subsidy; the actual amount I don't have on the tip of my tongue, but we do provide some grant money to try and assist those areas to maintain veterinary services in an area where normally they wouldn't because of the insufficient business.

But we do provide a program to assist vets to set up in areas, particularly in northern communities, and I'm looking to see who got the short straw. Ken Knox, ADM, will --

Mr Bisson: Ken, you keep on getting picked.

Hon Mr Buchanan: While Ken is coming up, we tend to be looking at supporting the livestock-agricultural side of things as opposed to the Fluffy and Spot business, which is a different ministry.

Mr Bisson: You'll get a lot of letters on that one.

Hon Mr Buchanan: With that lead-in, Mr Knox --

Mr Knox: Thanks, Mr Minister. We can get the details on the northern vet assistance program. It is a program that does, as the minister said, support the large-animal components of veterinaries in those areas where otherwise we would have difficulty getting a vet.

The aspect of equipment puzzles me a bit, in that -- I assume from the question that the equipment was owned by the previous vet and he just took his equipment or her equipment with them when they left.

Mr Bisson: Exactly.

Mr Knox: So that would be the requirement of the vet coming in. There may be, though, a possibility under the northern heritage program to look for some funding opportunity. But we have the information and detail of the program as to what it does and doesn't cover, and I'd be glad to get that for you.

Mr Bisson: What I'd like to know specifically, is there any kind of a program, because we haven't been able to find anything, that would assist in offsetting rent of location? Because apparently -- this is what I understand in the community as a person, I think Kapuskasing, the vets over there have their rent somehow subsidized through the Ministry of Agriculture and we haven't been able to get anything in regard to trying to find out if we can do the same in Monteith. I wonder if you can --

Mr Knox: I'd be glad to look into the specifics of that. I know that there are different regions and the requirements of those with local committees set up to say, "Here are the aspects of the program that we need in order to attract a veterinarian." Some of those have included or negotiated to have included in that some sort of relief on rent. In other areas, rent isn't an issue because the square footage rent is so inexpensive that they would look for other components of the program to attract a vet into the area. But again, I'd be glad to get the details of the program.

Just to summarize that, there are local committees in each case that determine what the needs are. The program's objectives are to attract veterinarians into areas where there are large animals where otherwise a vet wouldn't go, and then it's a matter of negotiating between the local committees and our staff to put in place the program.

Mr Bisson: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair: I recognize Ms Haeck.

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): Minister, I think you are well aware that there are many farmers in Niagara who are very anxious for the conservation easement program, and I take some solace that it is still on the table. I want to at this point reiterate my support for that. I know you're well aware of that, but I do want to say that publicly. I know that Mr Hansen from the area is as well, and there are a number of the major farmers in the area who would like to participate in that program.

One of the concerns that definitely I've heard recently -- it's been an ongoing issue now for a while and I know you've been involved in some discussions regarding the crop insurance issue for the tender fruit as a result of the two hailstorms last year, both for grapes and peaches. There were a lot of concerns raised, particularly by the council of the town of Niagara-on-the-Lake, about the viability issue, and I wonder if you can make some comments on the state of the crop insurance plan for tender fruit at this time.

Hon Mr Buchanan: At the time that I visited the area, just after the second hailstorm, obviously the fact that a very small percentage of the tender fruit producers carry crop insurance was a big issue. At the time, I was told by some individuals that the crop insurance for tender fruit, ie, peaches, was too expensive --

Ms Haeck: That's right.

Hon Mr Buchanan: -- that the price that they got for their commodity was too low and therefore it didn't make any sense to take crop insurance and that the plan needed to be changed. I might add, there were other farmers who talked to me about the fact that they self-insured themselves. They didn't necessarily grow all their peaches in one area. They would lease land in other areas and they'd sort of move around and try to avoid the hail.

Ms Haeck: I do remember that conversation, yes.

Hon Mr Buchanan: It didn't necessarily work for everyone in the summer of 1992. One of the things is that if you're running an insurance program, the premiums have to be able to cover the projections in terms of losses and it has to be actuarially sound. Peaches being a somewhat reasonably valuable commodity and with some risk, the premiums are high.

We asked the Niagara Tender Fruit Board to take a look at what kinds of changes it would like within the framework of what crop insurance is all about, that your premiums are supposed to cover the liabilities. As of this particular day, I've not heard back, although I understand that the tender fruit board did hire a group of consultants or individuals to look at the problem and try to come up with a plan or a concept that would be affordable and that they could buy into.

As of now, I haven't seen any response from the tender fruit board. Presumably, they should have received a response back from their consultant. Perhaps the deputy can carry on from there.

Ms Haeck: I'd appreciate her comments.

1630

Ms Rita Burak: The tender fruit board wanted to have a fresh pair of eyes look at the peach plan particularly, because it was not satisfied with the enrolment numbers. As the minister has indicated, I believe they are scheduled to meet with the Crop Insurance Commission of Ontario and provide the commission with their views on the basis of that review fairly shortly. I can get the date for you. They have a regularly scheduled meeting with the commission every year.

The other review that is anticipated is a national one next week at the federal-provincial ministers of agriculture meeting. The Canadian Horticultural Council will be making a presentation to all the ministers from all the provinces as well as the federal minister on a number of the priorities that touch every province.

One of the issues they've raised as a critical one for everybody to look at jointly is the coverage of crop insurance, not just for tender fruits but for other horticultural crops, because overall, in all the horticultural crops, the coverage is not what everybody would like. Again, they're hoping there may be a new approach that can be taken to this. Rather than having each province attempt a new program and the federal government having to respond in different ways, a comprehensive national look at all the horticultural crops would be the best approach. So from two perspectives, I think we have some hope that new ways of coming up with a good plan will be here soon.

Ms Haeck: I'll yield to my colleagues at this point. I do have another question relating to some of the things happening in the wine industry, but I'll yield to them at this point.

Mr Wiseman: I'd like to talk about the price of food and where it's going to go in the next few years. I'd like to talk about it in conjunction with urban sprawl, the protection of class 1, 2 and 3 farm land and the Durham region official plan to destroy 1, 2 and 3 farm land.

I've had some conversations with some people who are knowledgeable about the price of food from the point of view that they do a lot of importing and so on. They're becoming extremely concerned that in the short run, within the foreseeable future, the price of food in this country is going to start going up. We import about 25% of our food. If that ratio starts to increase, then it's going to cost us, because we are going to be in trouble with the people we import from.

These are knowledgeable people. These are people who make their living from importing and selling food. They tell us that this is happening. Yet you look at the Durham region official plan that came back with 22,000 acres of land flipped into urban shadows and into what would be considered designated urban use. Just for those of you who do not know the size of this, downtown Toronto is roughly 24,000 acres of land. This is what Durham region is suggesting.

They suggest that because this farm land is near an urban community, it'll never make any money. I'd like you to comment on maybe the economics of farming near an urban centre and what we as a government are doing about it, because I don't think buying easements of 2,000 acres for $20 million is going to solve the problem in the kind of time frame we need to solve it.

Hon Mr Buchanan: We have a major problem, and notwithstanding your opening comment in terms of the price of food going up, we have about the cheapest food in the world, second only to the US in terms of what it costs to feed ourselves, and we have some of the best food produced here, along with what we import. I don't know that the prospect is that food prices are going to go up. The food industry itself continually puts pressure on primary producers to lower the prices they receive, and we've seen this in the last few years when in fact farmers are getting less for their products than they were getting even a decade ago.

The viability of farming in an urban shadow is certainly in question, because the cost of good farm land in urban areas -- and this is one of the problems in the Niagara region -- the capital cost of land, is so high because the farmers are bidding against speculators who are willing to pay much higher prices than what the land is worth as agriculture, therefore putting a lot of pressure on farm land and the price is bid up.

Any farmer who attempts to get into or buy additional land for expansion in the urban shadow is at a very big disadvantage, to the point that it's not economical, because quite frankly the prices that farmers are receiving for their product is not sufficient for them to cover the costs of their overhead, let alone make a living. That has meant that farming near urban areas has become very suspect and a lot of the land has been bought by people more interested in building houses than in growing corn or anything else.

What are we doing about it? We did a quick review a year ago or so, looking to see if we could come up with some ideas that would work for the preservation of farm land. There's no consensus in rural Ontario among the farm community as to what the best way of doing that should be, although there are a lot of ideas that I'm sure you're aware of. One of them is easements, and land trusts, using the Planning Act. Some people just think we shouldn't worry about it and let the market take care of it. But there's no consensus or no sense of which direction we should go.

While we were doing that, however, the so-called Sewell commission was looking at the Planning Act and revisions there. The commission has come out with some recommendations which include preserving class 1, 2 and 3 farm land for agriculture, period, without severances or allowing houses to spring up.

I think the short answer to the last part of your question is that the government will look at the recommendations in the Sewell commission, of which there are many. Part of the agreement was that the commission would stay on for the implementation. It would not be another report that would be put on the shelf, that having completed a study, we'd put it on the shelf and forget about it. The intention is that Mr Sewell is going to stay on to work with the government, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and others on the implementation.

I certainly hope we can use the recommendations to preserve agricultural land, but more importantly, we need to look, I guess, beyond this as to how we can make good agricultural land affordable in terms of what it's worth as agricultural land. There's no use paying $10,000 an acre or some ridiculous price for farm land, because you'll never, ever get that return, and we have to look at how we address the concept of affordability of farm land without interfering too much in the marketplace, and I stress that.

I don't think there are very many people who want us to set the price of farm land. I suspect there are a few, but it's not the overwhelming majority opinion that the government should interfere to that degree. So it's a major challenge of how we make it affordable.

The concept of conservation easements, which we're examining in the Niagara region: I think the idea was that it would be a pilot and see how it would work. There are other ways, obviously, in terms of trusts and so on that we are willing to explore, but we do have to get a handle on it. Otherwise we're going to have urban sprawl all across the GTA, and in my view it's important that we protect and preserve some agricultural land in the confines of the GTA for future generations.

1640

The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Minister. The government caucus's time has caucus's time has expired. I now turn to the Liberal Party.

Mrs Fawcett: I'd like to go back for a few minutes to the closure of the stockyards. I had someone call me who trucks livestock to the yards and he's really concerned that the facilities are now not going to be really as good as what was available at the Ontario stockyards, especially around the -- well, he mentioned pen size and comfort for the animals at the smaller community barns. One thing that really concerned him was that there was no place for cleaning and disinfecting trucks at the small barns. He's wondering, is he now going to be running into all kinds of environmental problems and people really not wanting him to clean his trucks there at these small barns? He was really concerned about how all that was going to work.

Also, you were mentioning the new one that maybe the sheep farmers or somebody was talking about. If a private person or someone is going to start up a new yard, did I read you right in saying that this trust fund could be used for that? Then again, in view of what else you said about the "no more grants, only loans," is this a loan from the trust fund or will the trust fund money just go back?

So all of those things, and now I'll let you try to answer those.

Hon Mr Buchanan: Let me start with your last question first.

With regard to the trust fund, there have been no decisions made. In fact, I was criticized by some of the media for not having sort of a plan. It was not my intention to decide how that trust money would be spent or whether it would be spent at all, or whether it would just be the interest on the fund perhaps that would go to the industry. I intend to carry out dialogue and consultation with the livestock industry to decide how they would like to spend it.

My sort of priority in the short term would be to make sure that we have good capacity in the sales barn field to handle -- that would be my priority, but that's just my first offer in terms of priority. The industry may in fact decide that it should go totally into research. They may decided to only spend the interest. They may decide on an annual grant to the University of Guelph or whatever. That's open in terms of how that money will be spent.

Whether it will be a grant or a loan, I'm certainly willing to listen to what the industry has to say, so I don't have a definitive answer in terms of grant versus loan. If the industry wants to take the money that comes in through the lease and put it out as a grant, I'm willing to listen to that, although I think in terms of preserving the industry, that's not the best way to go.

In terms of the facilities at some of the community sales barns, it's an ironic question, because I have been criticized for being responsible for a second-class operation down at the stockyards because we didn't have the same degree --

Mrs Fawcett: Maybe saying these others are worse.

Hon Mr Buchanan: Yes, we didn't have the same degree of inspection down there as was mandated at the community sales barns. They have to have a vet on hand and have it inspected, and some of you will have seen the bad media we got on the people's network recently at the stockyards.

Mrs Fawcett: So there won't be a problem then with animals and --

Hon Mr Buchanan: I don't perceive that there's a problem. There may be some need for some improvements to upgrade the community sales barns; I don't deny that. There may be a need for that, and we'll have to do some monitoring in terms of that issue.

However, I would quickly add, in terms of the calls I have had on this issue, that the trucking industry, I would say quite up front, probably stands to lose more by this announcement than anyone else. Of the animals that were brought down to the stockyards, about 70% or 80% were taken back out again to the places in York and down towards the Hamilton area and other places where the slaughterhouse facilities actually are, so the people who were doing the trucking were getting trucking two ways. It was good for their business, and I certainly don't deny that at all.

I believe that in terms of their future there still are going to be trucking opportunities to the community sales barns. In fact, it may indeed save the farmers some money in terms of costs if they don't have to go as far. We have to make sure the capacity is there at the community sales barns in terms of the washing and so on.

Obviously, I'm prepared to sit down and talk with the group that represents the community sales barns. They have been, I can say to you, putting a lot of pressure on me since I took this office, that the stockyard was unfair competition and we should get out of the business. I think I have a right now to talk to them and say there are some things that the industry wants to see in terms of washing and cleaning up trucks and so on to maintain a good image. I think I have a right now to talk to them about what they need to do to get their act together so we can get on with business.

Mrs Fawcett: Are there certain regulations in place that this must happen? Are those in force?

Hon Mr Buchanan: We're getting too technical here, Ms Fawcett. We'll bring an expert in.

Dr Tom Baker: I'm sorry; I'm not 100% sure if that's a requirement in the legislation. It's certainly good practice. In the abattoirs there are truck cleaning facilities which could be utilized in this respect, if there is a gap in some areas. I know the larger sales barns do have those facilities, but I can't be 100% positive if it's in the Livestock Community Sales Act or not.

Hon Mr Buchanan: I'm certainly aware of some sales barns that do not have those facilities, so there's a point there, but again, we can talk to the community sales barn operators and say, "This is something we need to improve the image" and I'm prepared to have those discussions.

Mrs Fawcett: It does cross over into the environmental problems as well.

Hon Mr Buchanan: Yes.

Mr Cleary: Getting back to the stable funding, we've always supported some type of stable funding, and it seems like this may be the time we're going to get it.

I guess we'll talk a little bit about Bill 42. Under the current proposed legislation, Bill 42, while all farmers are expected to pay their $150 registration fee, you have provided assurance that they may request and receive a full refund without problems.

Hon Mr Buchanan: Yes.

Mr Cleary: Can you assure farmers that they will not at any point in the future wipe out the refundability option, such as happened with the cattlemen, I understand? Will you assure them of that?

Hon Mr Buchanan: I can assure them that as long as I'm minister that would not happen. I can also assure them that if there were to be any change in that, I would subscribe to extensive consultation so that would not happen without their approval.

Mr Cleary: As well, there has been some concern expressed over -- I think I asked you this before, but I'd just like to get it on the record -- what may be asked about each farmer's operation on the registration application. Can the minister provide assurance that any information disclosed on this -- although I understand it's common -- form will not be used by the ministry and general farm organizations for any other purposes except to collect farm-based data?

Hon Mr Buchanan: I'm going to ask Rolly Stroeter, who is the expert on this, to come up. While he's coming, what we're going to provide to the GFOs is basically what we call tombstone data: a name, address, phone number and, if it's a business partnership, who the partners are. That's the kind of information we'll be passing along. We will be collecting some other things, but I'll let Rolly answer that, because I believe he has done some what I think he would call pre-screening of a form with some farmers and some farm leaders.

1650

Mr Rolly Stroeter: We have pre-screened a preliminary form and tested it. Essentially, it contains the same information or the same type of information that we said it would contain during our consultation last summer in the information sessions. The use of the information is really for our statistical purposes. We need to understand how many farm businesses we have in Ontario. We ask for the name of the principal owners or partners or shareholders, the top three, so to speak. We need an address for those people. We need their telephone numbers. We will be asking about their age in broad ranges, we will be asking for their gross farm income, again in broad ranges so that there is no proprietary information divulged, and we will also be asking what kind of educational background they have.

In addition, we will be asking what kind of business enterprise they have, what kind of commodities they produce, whether they have livestock, and a question on the land acreage that's attached to this farm business, in some very general ways.

All the information is protected under the freedom of information and protection of privacy legislation, so we can use it for statistical purposes only, and in terms of sharing the information with the general farm organizations, we are prepared to share name and address information with them.

Mr Cleary: Minister, when do you expect to bring this bill into the House?

Hon Mr Buchanan: I would like to have it in next week, but I'm expecting it's probably going to be the week after, the week of July 12. As I promised you earlier, if we can negotiate with the other House leaders -- and I would ask you to pass the word on to your House leader -- if we could have a couple of days in committee to allow groups to come in and make presentations, I've agreed to do that. I would like to see it completed and wrapped up before we rise for the summer recess.

Mr Cleary: You've answered my next question already. Some in rural Ontario still don't think they know enough about the bill, and if you were agreeing to a few days of hearings, there's a good possibility we could get them in to make their views known. I'm sure their input would assist you in a number of ways, and I hope you get it in and get this settled, this year at least.

Hon Mr Buchanan: I certainly hope so, and I look forward to your support when we get it in there.

Mr Cleary: My next question was touched on a bit earlier, Bill 162, to do with deer farming. I have been talking to some of my colleagues about this. It's the Minister of Natural Resources' bill, which we're concerned may stunt some aspects of agriculture. At last sight, which was quite a while ago, I believe the bill extended his regulatory powers to include all animals in Ontario, including domestic animals and livestock.

Specifically, the bill allowed the Natural Resources minister to identify any species as undesirable and thus allow him to eradicate commercial farming of that species. I'm going to give an example: Unless these things change, the Minister of Natural Resources could arbitrarily decide that dairy cattle are undesirable and therefore may not be farmed in the province of Ontario. I think this is an extreme example, but I am concerned over the bill's potential impact on agriculture.

Therefore, I seek a commitment from the minister that all farming, even non-traditional farming animal species, will be regulated by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food and that it will continue to work with concerned parties, such as the deer farming association, to develop an effective livestock industry diversification act.

Hon Mr Buchanan: Yes. As I mentioned briefly earlier, I have a commitment from the new minister and the old Minister of Natural Resources that if Bill 162 goes forward, we will be introducing a livestock diversification act which will cover the so-called non-traditional species. We certainly believe and feel that the Ministry of Agriculture and Food is responsible for the normal farm animals.

I do not want to mislead you, though, because there is one issue that I want to be up front on, at the risk of causing some controversy: the native species. When I've met with the deer farmers a couple of times -- I've met with some of the groups -- I have told them that I did not know whether or not I could defend the farming of native species, ie, the white-tailed deer. That decision is not hard and fast, but I don't want to mislead you today into thinking that I'm committed to fighting on all fronts.

I'm sure you are aware that in some provinces they do native species when it comes to deer. In others they do non-native and in some they do both. We have obviously been having some discussions with the Ministry of Natural Resources, with the non-traditional livestock farmers. As I'm sure you're very much aware, the Ontario Federation of Hunters and Anglers has quite a different opinion when it comes to game farming. It's the intention of the government to balance all of those interests.

It's my view that we need to have some regulations in place for the non-traditional livestock game farming. They feel they need and want some regulations. It is our intention that we would have and administer, through an MOU with the Ministry of Natural Resources, the non-traditional livestock. I very much support that. I know the different game farming groups want that, and we expect that will be part of anything coming forward from Bill 162.

Mr Cleary: Do I get some more time?

The Chair: You have about three minutes.

Mr Cleary: Minister, I understand some of the problems, but as long as everyone understands each other -- there's a lot of misunderstanding out there, and as long as agriculture gets a fair shake at it -- I know there are types of deer being farmed out there, that it's quite an asset to the communities where they are. I know the meat is being sold in other areas, which is good for us, and I do know that they also attract tourists who drive by to see the farm.

I'll get back to the ethanol. You said earlier, and you gave us your guarantee, that you would do everything in your power to honour the existing tax exemptions.

My next question, which I'm having a little bit of difficulty identifying, is on this community action fund or money. How do you go about getting information on that?

1700

Hon Mr Buchanan: Keith Pinder worked on that. I think you heard what I said earlier. We're working hard on it. My staff and ministry are working with the Ministry of Finance and the federal government to try to get some commitment, because we understand the kind of amounts that are required for investment in the industry and the infrastructure. The investors would like that commitment. We're doing everything we can to do that.

On the access to the community action fund, Keith?

Mr Keith Pinder: There are five regional teams that are the source of funding to whom communities can apply for the new program, and if you wish, Mr Cleary, if you had a particular area, I could give you the name and address and phone number of the team chair they could contact.

For the remaining parts of the program, they are not yet announced. We would expect an announcement in the next few weeks, and with that announcement would be details coming out to communities to tell them to whom they can go for more information and for application forms for the remaining part of the program.

Mr Cleary: Thanks, I will get in touch with you later on that, then.

Mr Pinder: That's just fine.

Mr Cleary: Do I have some more time?

The Vice-Chair: Would you have a follow-up question?

Mr Cleary: I'd just mention that I would follow it up. I will talk to him later and try to find out who these people are. I have to ask it here because I've not had the opportunity to get any information, and believe me, some of us have tried. Any time left?

The Vice-Chair: Your time's expired, Mr Cleary. Mr Murdoch, perhaps you could address your question to the deputy minister in the minister's temporary absence.

Mr Murdoch: No problem there, and thank you. I think the gentleman here might want to ask the question to Mr Séguin. Anyway, I see he's back here.

Maybe I can ask you just to follow up from what he said, that our apple growers would get their money. Has that happened yet? I talked to someone and they didn't think it had happened. They may not have been told by their people yet or whatever, so I just wondered, if it hasn't, when will it happen so I can tell mine?

Ms Burak: I don't think the cheques have flowed yet, but I think if they haven't, we must be within hours of actually signing the federal-provincial agreement. I believe all of the provinces have agreed and the ministers are about to sign, and then cheques can flow.

Mr Bob Séguin: Yes, that's easy. For Mr Murdoch's information: As I discussed last week, we've discussed across the provinces with producers a revised national tripartite plan that can be instituted and the payout of the existing one which would then allow moneys to be flowed.

The ministers will be meeting next week. It would seem an opportune time to have the documents cross and all the signatures, and hopefully that will be next week. The intent is to have an interim payment flow almost immediately, probably throughout July, and that would be a substantial amount of money for their existing surpluses. Then the remaining flow, once it's clear how much product was actually sold in 1991-92, just the past crop year -- I should say 1992-93 -- the intent would be that later on in the year, probably in November or December, there would be a final cheque that would wrap up that crop year. The intent is to have a cheque within the next several weeks definitely, and the documents signed within the next week or so.

Mr Murdoch: I just wanted to know that because I know you mentioned it and I was happy to hear you talk about it last time, but I just wanted to follow it up.

Now that the minister's back, I just want to say first, though, that I appreciate all the work the minister does. I've had all these good relations with the minister, and I appreciate all the work you give me and all the help that you do because that sometimes works both ways.

I am happy with what you're doing. I'm impressed that you know the names of all the bureaucrats here. That would be a tough job alone, when you have a roomful of them and you happen to know who they are.

A couple more before we go on: Bill 162 you mentioned again and I know the Liberals talked about it, but it's on the order paper to be brought in this session, and you talked about not next week but the week after, so obviously you know more than we do that maybe we're going to be here most of the summer. I thought maybe you would announce today that we'd be out of here tomorrow.

If it comes in, though, I'm just wondering how you're going to coordinate with it because I think it's coming in for second reading and it will go out to committee, probably. Are you going to have someone take part in it, or how are we going to get this straightened out? If the bill comes in even after second reading and you haven't got involved, that means that I'm not going to like the bill. So I wonder how we're going to deal with that, because maybe when you do get involved -- and by "you" I mean the ministry -- it's nice if sometimes we can support something.

Hon Mr Buchanan: I don't do the coordination of what bills get in. I have enough trouble getting what I want in. I know that Bill 162 is on the so-called list of things for this session. All I can say is that I have a commitment from my colleagues and from the Minister of Natural Resources that if they proceed with Bill 162 we will be introducing a livestock diversification act before it gets second reading approval. We have that commitment. If it is brought forward, we will be introducing that immediately so that people will be able to see what the other side of the issue is.

Mr Murdoch: Okay, you can only get first reading.

Hon Mr Buchanan: Yes.

Mr Murdoch: You can only introduce them. They can't get second.

Hon Mr Buchanan: They can't get second, catch up.

Mr Murdoch: No, I know. Okay. Well, we could catch it up later or whatever. I just wondered if you were prepared.

A couple of other ones: the stockyards, the money you talk about, is that the province's money? It is, eh, the money that you're -- who owns them?

Hon Mr Buchanan: It would probably take a large team of lawyers -- let me respond in a serious way. One of the things some producers say is, "Why don't we sell the stockyards and then we could do something with the money." I am aware that there would be a lot of controversy around who owns the stockyards. I'm sure you are aware that many of the cattlemen who have been around a long time think it belongs to the Ontario Cattlemen's Association or a group like that.

The province, regardless of what government is in place -- I guess it's different if you're in opposition, but if you're the government you think the yards belong to the government or the people of Ontario. So rather than risk a long, drawn-out battle which would probably be a legal thing as to who owns them, it was our view that the best way was to lease the property, have the revenue -- a significant part of it or a large part of it -- go back to the industry and then you'd have something that would be long-lasting rather than just simply have a legal fight as to who owns it and who has the money.

I want to be up front that the province is expecting that some of the money is going to come back to the province from the lease; not, you know, 100% of it is going to go to the industry. We will have those negotiations in discussion with the livestock people to decide how to spend the money that comes in. We don't know yet how much that's going to be, either, and there are no hard-and-fast rules in terms of how the fund would be expended, how it will be built up, or whether or not there would be caps on it.

Mr Murdoch: Okay, that's where I was just concerned, because I know governments of today and the other governments would be strapped for cash and I'd hate to see that cash go into the overall pot and then we'd lose it for the industry. Maybe that's a good selling point, then, for our stable funding, that you'll have some good partners to deal with that'll support using the money in the industry with you.

The last one on the Environmental Bill of Rights: The problem I might have with that one is that, as you know, we have a lot of people who have moved into the country, even own 100-acre farms, who don't really farm and I'm concerned that they're going to start complaining and trying to take maybe the next-door farmer to court. I know you mentioned they have to be breaking a law, but is there going to be somebody to monitor this, like a frivolous objection? Because we run into this in the OMB all the time. That's why the OMB is swamped now, because there are so many frivolous objections in there and nobody will stand up and say, "This is a frivolous complaint and it's not going to go to the OMB." Are we going to run into that? Because I'm afraid -- you can talk about the air and if somebody's spreading manure they're polluting the air, to some people's minds. If they start bringing stuff like that, is there going to be anybody in there to monitor this?

Hon Mr Buchanan: You mentioned the OMB. Just let me touch on that aspect, because if the recommendations from the Sewell commission are accepted, my understanding is that there's a preliminary process that we put in place which, rather than go to a full-blown kind of OMB hearing, there will be an opportunity for the parties to sit down around a table within 30 days to discuss their differences. It will be an attempt to resolve their differences informally before they get to a formal procedure.

The Environmental Bill of Rights in terms of the frivolous complaints -- Rita?

Ms Burak: I'm sorry, Mr Murdoch; not having the bill in front of me I forget the precise procedures that will be followed, but let me give you two responses. First of all, to just reiterate, as the minister said in response to one of the questions he's already had, that a significant change that was made in the draft bill to accommodate the rights that have already been established for farmers under the Farm Practices Protection Act was to, in the case of public nuisance, ensure that that act had primacy for odour, dust and noise. I think the farm community saw that as a positive response from the government.

In any other category of potential complaints, again, I'd have to have the act to refer to but, as I understand it, the Ministry of Environment and Energy will have very sensible discretion at its disposal to know when a full-blown inquiry is really necessary. Certainly the other ministries, as that was being developed, were concerned about this and I think most people were more comfortable with the final draft of the bill.

1710

The Acting Chair (Mr Bill Murdoch): I don't want Ted to lose any time so I'd better get to the Chair. Mr Arnott, we'll hear from you.

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): Minister, I've got 10 minutes and five questions, so I'll be brief. If you could be brief I'd appreciate it too. I'd like an update on the GATT situation from the perspective of agriculture in Ontario. I assume that will be one of the subjects of discussion at your federal-provincial agriculture ministers' meeting that you're going to next week. Can you give us any information on that?

Hon Mr Buchanan: Yes, you're correct. At every meeting I've ever attended there has been an update on GATT, and most of them have been optimistic that an agreement was pending. We will get an update again. Let me just very quickly say that with a new secretary there's some belief that maybe this is what it will take to get an agreement. There has been some movement, and the US and the EC in fact have come to some agreements. There seems to be a resolution of differences, so there's a sense that there will be an agreement.

We in Ontario have supported a balanced position in terms of article XI and the export subsidy reductions, and continue to support that and hope that will be our position and that we can get an agreement based on that. Whether or not we're going to get it, again we'll have to see what the update is. It's not as optimistic as I would like to think, and I've heard more in the last six months that leads me to be a bit pessimistic. But there is some hope there will be a GATT agreement, and some people are saying by the end of 1993.

Mr Arnott: I know that the people in Wellington county, the majority of them, do support the balanced position that you have put forward in support of strengthening and clarifying article XI. Hopefully, that's the outcome that we can achieve.

The second question is deer farming, and it's been raised by a number of different members on this committee. I think you said the livestock diversification act would be companion legislation to the game and fish amendments that the Ministry of Natural Resources put forward. Would it not be sensible to make a commitment that as far as you're concerned the proclamation date, the date at which the bill would come into effect, would be the same date as the amendments to the Game and Fish Act, such that it would be companion legislation for all intents and purposes? I'm concerned that there might be a time lag in there where there'd be a period of time when the one piece of legislation was in force and the other was not because of the timing.

Hon Mr Buchanan: I'm not the expert on how these things get proclaimed, obviously. I hear what you're saying and I certainly would be supportive of them coming into effect at the same time, if we can do that legislatively. I'm not opposed to that. I'd have to have someone advise me on the proclamation of various bills and acts, but I hear what you're saying and I would indeed support the concept.

Mr Arnott: Yes, I think it would be important in terms of not having a time lag if you're really talking about companion legislation.

Hon Mr Buchanan: It certainly could cut down on the phone calls and the letters that we would receive if they could happen at the same time.

Mr Arnott: Right. The move of the ministry to Guelph, the head office: What is going on there? Is it still the plan of the government?

Hon Mr Buchanan: It still is. The plan is to move and it's been confirmed. I think there's been one more announcement in Guelph again recently that it's still confirmed and it's happening. I believe there is some activity that is happening there and some tenders have been let. It's not going to happen as quickly, but basically it's been stretched out over a longer period of time.

Mr Arnott: The intention is to then have the operations headquartered in Guelph as of what date at the present time?

Ms Burak: As a result of the expenditure control plan announcement, as the minister said, the project will be delayed somewhat because we have been directed to scale back. That means we have to get the designers, the planners, involved in how you would do that. We're looking right now at how costs could be contained from the original estimate. Also, because of the expenditure control plan, there will obviously be fewer staff in that building, so we're in that process of reassessment now. We're reluctant at this point to give a precise date because that does lead the hopes of staff about a certain date and we want to be sure that the tenders will be let and construction will go as --

Mr Arnott: I know they're all looking forward to moving to Wellington county.

Mr Wiseman: Mr Chair, I request a 20-minute recess.

The Acting Chair: I guess that's in order, if you want. I guess we'll have a 20-minute recess then. Can we do that?

Interjection: You're chairing.

The Acting Chair: Do we vote on that?

Mr Arnott: I have another question, Mr Chairman.

The Acting Chair: Just a minute, if we're going to take a 20-minute recess. He requested it.

Mr Arnott: Is there any requirement that if one member requests a recess, we have to do it?

Clerk of the Committee (Ms Tonia Grannum): If it's agreed to.

The Acting Chair: All right, after agreement on that.

Mr Cleary: I don't think we agreed to it.

The Acting Chair: That's what I'm asking right now.

Interjection: No.

Clerk of the Committee: It was just a quorum call.

The Acting Chair: Okay, then let's just carry on.

Mr Arnott: Minister, on the issue of waste management, your government has stated very clearly that no incineration of waste will be allowed under the term of the government. Energy-from-waste proposals which have been put forward in the past for a number of years will not be allowed. Even test burning of tires in cement kilns is not going to be allowed. Yet prime agricultural land is designated as potential landfill sites. We're losing prime land to that purpose, yet the whole thrust of the Sewell commission report, and I think your priority as minister, has been to strengthen regulations so that prime farm land will be maintained. I would like to ask you what your view is on putting garbage in prime agricultural land areas.

Hon Mr Buchanan: I'm not particularly happy with the fact that when landfill sites are being sought out, it seems they always end up on agricultural land. We know that if you're going to have landfill sites -- and I think we are going to have them for a while yet; we haven't got the creation of garbage under control. I think our society has changed to the point that we have, over the last couple of decades at least, been creating more and more garbage and we've had to find something to do with it. Unless we get the garbage stream under control, we're going to continue to have a need for landfill sites.

It's unfortunate that when you look for suitable land and you find the necessary clay that you're looking for, it usually ends up being prime agricultural land. I think that's unfortunate. It doesn't make me happy, but I guess at the end of the day, it's better to perhaps do that and dislocate some agriculture than it is to put it in a limestone quarry and have it leach out into watercourses, which was a proposal that was on the table in my community back in the late 1980s, where they wanted to put it basically into a quarry. There was a lot of concern that the leachate would get into the watercourse. It doesn't make me happy that it's farm land that's being looked at, but I can't do much about that.

You mentioned incineration in your preamble. Although I know there are some proponents of that who think that's a good idea, the government, the former minister and the current minister still have some reservations about the safety if you take the incineration and you spread whatever it is that goes up the chimney, although I recognize and accept the fact the technology is better than it was just a few years ago. There may come a day when incineration is much more acceptable. We as a government believe that its day has not yet come.

Meanwhile, that means that I have to live with the groups that are looking, including in my own community, two communities actually, two counties, at agricultural land for landfill sites. Three sites were announced in Hastings country. It's of major concern to the farm community. But it's one of those, I guess, evils that we'll have to live with in the short term until we can get our garbage stream under control.

Mr Arnott: Thank you, Minister. One last question. Mr Berendsen of Maryborough township -- you and I have been discussing this since you were elected in 1990 and appointed minister. Last year at this time in the estimates committee, we talked about this and I asked you whether if indeed he was able to provide an independent laboratory analysis that the water was polluted, you would give some consideration to meeting with him and bringing the issue to some final resolution. I understand now that he's been contacted by you and that it has been offered to him to have a well drilled on his property at the government's expense and that if he wishes to seek further redress he can do so through the courts. Is that correct?

Hon Mr Buchanan: That is correct.

1720

Mr Arnott: You said earlier that the only reason you sent water to his farm for so long, at a fairly significant cost, was based on humanitarian reasons. Is that correct?

Hon Mr Buchanan: That's right. I'm still willing to offer the well on humanitarian grounds, basically. The scientists, lawyers, technocrats and others still dispute the fact that there's proof the water is contaminated to the degree that's being claimed. So I'm doing it on a humanitarian basis as opposed to this disputable scientific evidence to show that.

Mr Arnott: Can you give me an estimate as to how much it has cost the government to ship water to his farm since you initiated that?

Hon Mr Buchanan: I can't. I don't know whether anyone else can or not. Ken Knox seems to be coming forward.

Mr Knox: I'd have to check the records, but I believe it's $36,000 for a year's supply of water.

Mr Arnott: You've delivered it for more than a year, though.

Mr Knox: We delivered it for more than a year, that's correct. It would probably be a year and a half that we delivered water to Mr Berendsen.

Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): Mr Minister, knowing how hard you work at this job, I think you're doing a pretty good job. When I think back where governments used to put agriculture, I think you've increased its awareness in government, and there's also the fact that with the times we're in, we don't have money free-flowing. I think you've done a pretty good job, and I try to say that as non-partisan as possible.

What I'd like to know is a little bit about a few people back in my area. Maybe I can get it on the record and send it to them. We cancelled AgriCorp moving to Chatham, and a number of people asked, "Does that mean then that the process is gone?" Could you please, for the record, explain now what's going to happen with AgriCorp and where it's at?

Hon Mr Buchanan: The AgriCorp bill had first reading in the House and hopefully some sunny afternoon when the House leaders decide there's some housekeeping bills that should be dealt with, I can get the concurrence of opposition to deal with it. I don't think it's contentious. I haven't heard anybody speak against it. I would hope that we could get it dealt with quickly in the House so that AgriCorp in fact would be set up.

The expectation is that the headquarters, which was intended at one time for Chatham, will be headquartered in Guelph. In light of the earlier question about the move, we'll incorporate AgriCorp into the building in Guelph.

It is our intention to proceed with that. In fact, it's getting to the point where it's going to be of some urgency that we get that passed. I'd like to get it done before we rise. I don't know whether that's possible or not. I have to depend to some extent on the House leaders to negotiate what bills get into the House and what don't.

Mr Klopp: It came up a little earlier, it was mentioned I guess from our caucus, the issue of saving land: I think we're all aware of that, but I guess one of my things has always been that if you make it that it's worth farming or something, they'll take care of saving the land themselves.

With the community economic development program and the issue right around Toronto -- I think we even talked about it a little earlier with some of the farm leaders who were here, about some of the newer markets. We're having a lot of different ethnic groups coming and they don't want to import. I think somebody said 25% of our food is imported. Do you see CED working with some of these groups maybe around the GTA, the shadow of Toronto, to try to get some of these markets opened up? Is that possible? What's your opinion on that?

Hon Mr Buchanan: I am very optimistic about Jobs Ontario Community Action. I think it's going to take a little while to get it operating, but I'm hoping that in the agrifood industry, the producer group, the processor group, and I'm hoping some of the existing farm groups, will look at this program as a way of helping them to get into some value-added niche marketing.

One of the concerns I have is that of the consumer's dollar at the food checkout, the farmer's probably only getting a few cents of that back. We need to look and explore ways of getting more of the consumer dollar back into the hands of the farmer to make farming viable.

This particular program, along with the community bond fund, I think is going to provide some opportunities and, as legislators, we need to talk to the different farm groups about what opportunities are there for them to get some access to this fund, although as I said earlier, this is not a grant; this is a program that is designed for true community economic development, which means helping people to help themselves through their own money and through other dollars that are available in the community.

We know that there are billions and billions of dollars in rural Ontario on deposit in banks. Most of it is not going back into rural Ontario. It goes off to head office and it's being lent out internationally. I feel that this program, along with the other, the community bond fund, will allow opportunities for communities to take the resources that they have and reinvest them in those communities.

Whether it's around the GTA or in other areas across the province, it's an opportunity I think that we should seize, because quite frankly, neither the government of Ontario nor the government of Canada have the resources dollar-wise to put out in terms of support on an ongoing basis. Money is becoming a scarce commodity in governments and we need to look at more innovative ways of supporting agriculture. I think the community development fund is certainly one way of doing it.

Mr Bisson: Two things: I guess one of them is a plea and the other one is a question.

One of the only government offices in the community of Matheson happens to be a Ministry of Agriculture office and I guess I would make the plug and ask that hopefully during the exercise of fiscal constraint that we're going through as a government, that be considered and we protect that office, not only because it's one of the only offices -- actually, the only provincial office in that community -- but because it serves a very useful function. It's the centre of the agricultural community within that particular area of the province. So I ask -- I'm looking at you.

Hon Mr Buchanan: Okay.

Mr Klopp: No personal plugs here.

Hon Mr Buchanan: Just let me say something else, which ties back to the previous question. I was quite involved in terms of the development of that program, Jobs Ontario Community Action, in terms of the rural Ontario perspective. One of the things that program has is that it is across ministries. People who live in rural Ontario will be able to go to the Ministry of Natural Resources and ask about the community action program and they will know about it. There are seven different ministries involved in this, which is important in rural Ontario.

It's not just Economic Development and Trade or it's not Municipal Affairs, but that particular program has seven ministries involved, and they will be able to give, once the information is available -- it's not out yet in terms of a brochure, but you'll be able to go to other ministries.

Why does that tie in with your question? I'm hoping that the ministry offices we have and that other ministries have offices in rural Ontario will start to be able to offer information, whether it's a phone number or someone they can call if they want information about government programs or what's happening. I see our offices across rural Ontario as being well positioned to provide information and services not only for our programs but potentially for other ministries as well.

We have some duplication and overlap in terms of ministries and I for one am very interested in cutting out that overlap and duplication. Obviously, from my perspective, we want to maintain our offices because they are strategically located to serve the whole province. I certainly would be wanting to maintain that office, and if we can increase the services and information that are available through that office, then it would be all the better for the people of Matheson and surrounding area.

Mr Bisson: I think that makes a lot of sense too, because being about the only window of access for the provincial government in that area, to expand that role a little from being strictly the Ministry of Agriculture to also do some of the stuff that do in Northern Development and other ministries would make a lot of sense. I'm sure that's appreciated.

I want to take this opportunity -- and it's an issue that I know the minister and the ministry and the caucus in general came to some decision on in regard to the agricultural college around Haileybury. I know that is a difficult decision, but I would have two concerns after the decision being made. The first concern is what happens to those students within the area, in northern Ontario specifically, who want to pursue education in the agricultural field; the considerations being made for those students to access, because they're not going to be able to do that through that facility. I'm just wondering how far the ministry has got in dealing with the needs of northern students vis-à-vis agricultural studies.

1730

Hon Mr Buchanan: I'm going to share the spotlight and ask Norris Hoag, who has been working with and talking to the different groups and has in fact met with a group, I believe it was last night, to talk about what's happening at New Liskeard and surrounding research activities. Norris, the question is about the students --

Mr Bisson: I'll lump into that the second part of the question, which would be the research initiatives being done by that college. How do we plan to continue some of that stuff that was being done, especially with n regard to the northern issues around agriculture and the specific things they were working on?

Mr Norris Hoag: The first part of the question has to do with the educational aspect in the diploma program. There is a general course being offered as far as agriculture is concerned, and then there is a specific course, which is a unique one, the two-year diploma program in equine management.

First of all, with the general agriculture business management course, our plans are to offer the second year of that course for those students who took their first year in the year that has just concluded; they will have an opportunity to complete their education at the institution they started in. We are going to then offer the opportunity for any student who wishes to enter into the remaining colleges, the four institutions that are left, Ridgetown, Guelph, Kemptville and Alfred. We have adequate space to accommodate those students, and the courses essentially cover the same areas.

That's how we are taking care of the students. Every student within the system who had applied and had conditional acceptance, as long as they meet those conditions, will have a place within the remaining system. Does that answer your question in terms of the students?

Mr Bisson: I would have a suggestion afterwards.

Mr Hoag: Okay. As far as the research is concerned, and that was the subject of the meeting last night, we are looking at the unique research areas that have been conducted at New Liskeard. They're unique probably for two reasons. First of all, the crops programs that we have conducted at New Liskeard are unique because of the climatic conditions, so we have concern that we need to address those issues. We also have a unique situation on a provincial level in that we have created some facilities; in fact, the facilities for cow-calf have been created at New Liskeard as well as for sheep.

We are looking at those priorities in relationship to the priorities of our total research program across the province, and we were getting initiated last night. You would appreciate the difficulty in terms of looking at one sector's priorities in view of another sector's priorities. Obviously, there is an element of protection by that sector for its particular considerations, although last night I think was a very open meeting, and we have made a good start at trying to get some rationalization of those objectives.

The Ontario Cattlemen's Association attended our meeting last night. We are considering the provincial objectives as far as cow-calf are concerned, and there is some indication that the cattle community may very well have some money that may help continuing some of the work that has gone on there.

At this stage of the game, it's too early to really say how we're going to do it or just exactly which programs we are going to continue. It's a matter of negotiating and consulting with both the local community at New Liskeard as well as the specific commodity groups to see what we can do. Obviously, if we're going to reshape the priority deck, it may well mean we're going to be taking some of the funds we're using in some of the ongoing institutions and keep some of the activity going there. Now, that's not an announcement; that's merely an indication of a possible outcome of the consultation we are going through.

Clearly, the crops programs are the most unique. The livestock ones we could probably conduct in other places. With the crops programs, there's no way that we can re-create that particular micro-environment, so probably that becomes our highest priority.

Mr Bisson: Just as a suggestion, is there a possibility of looking at how we can partner with other institutions, such as Northern College, perhaps, to offer some of these programs through the Contact North system in regard to telecommunications advantages we have now? I'm not sure how technically the ministry would be able to do this, but there is a need for northern students to be able to stay within the area to go to school. Can we take a look at partnering with Northern College or whatever it might be and utilize facilities, that you can bring the classroom from southern Ontario, through telecommunications get it up into the north, and after that tie the research facility in somehow? I don't know exactly how you do that, but it is maybe an option.

Mr Hoag: There is some consideration for that now. I believe the minister, in his previous answer, referred to the independent study program on correspondence courses. We don't have a general agriculture business management diploma program complete yet in terms of independent study. There is a complete course as far as horticulture is concerned. It is not specifically aimed at northern Ontario, but it is a general horticulture program.

You do raise another interesting question, that is, that the diploma program is only one phase of the educational program we have offered in New Liskeard. There has been quite an extensive effort in continuing education, and that will probably continue but be centred out of Kemptville in terms of serving northern Ontario, and it could very well be that we will make use of, in some way, the network in northern Ontario.

Ms Haeck: I know the minister is well aware of the winery industry that we have located in the peninsula. In talking to both Don Ziraldo, who is a key player with Inniskillin, and Klaus Reif, who is the owner of Reif Estate Winery, both of them have indicated that the supply of good vinifera hybrids is really not enough for the industry as a whole. Is there something being done to promote additional plantings or to deal with some of the land use questions that have been out there to make sure that we do have a good supply of the vinifera grapes for the local wineries?

Hon Mr Buchanan: I think the response has been to the industry itself, the fact that there is a need for more of the grapes where there's a market in terms of wine. I have not been out there encouraging people to do things, but I am aware, from talking to people in the Niagara region, that some people are even taking some of the tender fruit production out and putting in grapes because they see there's some future in terms of the wine industry in that region. I personally have not been actively encouraging that, but it has been happening, and I think it's a natural response to the marketplace. Do any staff want to comment?

Mr Knox: Specifically, we don't have a program to assist in the transfer of one variety of grapes to another nor to remove tender fruit and put it into grapes, but the Ontario Grape Growers Marketing Board does work closely with the industry to determine and look at those marketing needs and convey that information to farmers. As you know, the grape board and the Ontario Tender Fruit Producers Marketing Board share an office, so there's a good sharing of information as to what the future potential is for the various kinds of grapes.

There was, in the past, a program to remove undesirable kinds of grapes, but it wasn't to encourage specific ones, only that we removed old ones and that the industry, looking at the market conditions, was replacing those with grapes that were more profitable or had the potential to be more profitable.

Ms Haeck: Definitely, the grape pull-out program totally changed the face of the winery industry in the peninsula, shall we say for the better, because obviously as an industry in Ontario, it's being rewarded with a lot of recognition across the world.

But the land use question and making sure we have a good supply is still definitely an issue. There are severances being put forward. I know that none of these crops immediately spring forth and there's a profit the next year, but around the land use question, this is definitely a viable crop. I would hope that if the questions arise, there is some encouragement given for that kind of planting to take place.

1740

Mr Knox: Not dealing with the land use aspect, but from the point of view of conservation easements -- I think you covered that in an earlier question, Minister -- we do have extension staff in the field who are providing that kind of assistance and advice to farmers: "Here's the read on the market conditions so that you can get the best possible response from the acre of land in the market conditions that are there." Those services are provided through our local agricultural office and the Vineland research station.

Ms Haeck: The wineries themselves are indicating, these two wineries in particular, that they want to see that there's a good basis for agriculture and maintaining it. The pressure of severances is definitely one that they want to thwart, because they want to make sure that their supply of the vinifera grapes is there; the severance issue is one they're not terribly in favour of.

Mr Cleary: I've got a few housekeeping matters here that I want to get on the record. One is to do with crop insurance. I'm sure it hasn't been touched on in this session yet, and it's an issue that some ladies in Ontario have brought up. I'm sure you're familiar with the cases: women farmers who feel they are being discriminated against on a gender basis. These women would like to know what the minister is doing to ensure that women farmers who happen to be married are permitted to run a viable farm operation and receive crop insurance in their own right, without being dependent upon their husbands.

Hon Mr Buchanan: The Crop Insurance Commission of Ontario has developed a number of criteria to determine whether or not the spouses are sufficiently independent for insurance purposes. I want to make it very clear; I'm sure you are aware that there's no intent to discriminate against women in any way. The reason for it is that some farmers would like to divide up the property they farm into different segments, because some lands are more at risk than others when it comes to weather perils. All the commission has tried to determine is that if two individuals wish to be insured separately, they clearly do operate independent, separate operations.

There is an appeal mechanism if they don't like the decision of the commission. They are afforded the opportunity -- in fact, there have been a couple of cases recently where women who were denied on the first go-round were granted, through the appeal process, the right to have their own insurance.

It is a bit of a precautionary measure that's in there, and it isn't meant to discriminate against spouses. Three brothers or three sisters could be in farming as well and there would be an attempt to have it covered under one contract. I think your point is important, but the criteria are in place and it is an attempt to deal with it fairly.

Mr Cleary: Another question I have is on eggs. We got an inquiry last February and had sent a letter off to your ministry. Specifically, it comes from some egg producers who are experiencing problems with pests and rodents in their coops. I think I know the answer, but they were wondering if there was any government assistance for this.

Hon Mr Buchanan: When I was farming, we used to put out traps and catch those animals that got into the chicken coop. But I'm going to let the deputy answer that one; I don't know if she's had any experience with rodents in a chicken coop.

Ms Burak: As a matter of fact, several months ago I met with members of our egg board and they did bring along a veterinarian who spoke about the growers' concerns that this problem was getting worse. We did genuinely explore whether there was anything we could do of a financial nature to encourage producers to do the things that they must do in their operations to cut down on the problem, and at the end of the day, given the tight fiscal position of the province, we weren't able to come up with a special assistance program.

But I do understand, though, as a result of the prominence that issue was given to the egg board, they have internally come up with additional extension aids and suggestions for individual growers to try to get a better handle on this problem. The last time they chatted with us I think they felt they were doing as much as they could within their own organization to try to get a grip on this problem.

Mr Cleary: Maybe the minister or the deputy would like an opportunity to offer any comments or changes to the egg grading regulation, if any.

Hon Mr Buchanan: The cracked egg issue or the new resolutions?

Mr Cleary: Any changes to the egg grading regulations.

Hon Mr Buchanan: As you know, there were some federal regs that came out, and then whether or not the province was going to try to put exemptions in, and the cracked egg issue has been around for some time. Dr Baker can enlighten us on that issue.

Dr Baker: Yes, as you are aware, there was a health concern with that product going into retail markets. The status of that situation right now is that several egg processors have challenged, through the courts, the federal government's jurisdiction in respect to the enforcement of federal regulations in federally registered premises; basically that's if the sales are going to be intraprovincial.

This is before the courts now and I don't think really there's too much that we can offer in additional information until that question is settled, unless there's a specific question perhaps.

Mr Cleary: But there are no changes provincially that the province has brought forward?

Dr Baker: We have advised the egg industry that we are trying to harmonize provincial regulations with the federal standards, but that's not going to be in place for some months yet, I don't think.

Mr Cleary: I have another concern here, but it's potatoes this time. Some time ago we had an incredible story that your government would not allow an Ontario-based potato chip maker to have a licence to buy Ontario potatoes unless they handed over intimate details of the company to the government. "It seems that bureaucratic red tape overlooked rural Ontario. As a result, this processor was forced," and I'm just quoting, "to buy six million pounds of US potatoes."

Hon Mr Buchanan: I think what you're referring to is the potato protection board which was set up in 1984 or 1985.

Mr Knox: Four years ago.

Hon Mr Buchanan: Four years ago. It was set up by a previous government to protect the growers. The processors and the growers put the money into it to make sure that the growers got paid. In order to deal with that particular legislation, the people who are in the processing had to supply some information to the government in order to participate in that board.

Subsequently, I guess somewhat because of that celebrated case -- in fact, the company that I think you are referring to was handing out potato chips in my office, at least on the first floor of our building, some year ago.

1750

We met with the board, we talked to the processors and we decided to disband that. It was something they felt was no longer necessary. We eliminated that particular board. It was an irritant to the processor and we said to the processor and the growers, "Fine, if you feel there's no longer a need for it, we will eliminate that," and we have. The amount of money in the fund has been turned back and we've set up a trust which is going to go, in most cases, to research. We've eliminated that irritant.

I would say, in response to the details of your question, that buying those potatoes offshore was, I think, an attempt by the processor to make some waves and make some headlines that the potatoes were available here. We can't do anything about that now. But we did eliminate that particular fund, that particular criteria, at the request of the processors and the board.

I might add that we also did the same thing in the vegetable protection fund board that was in existence and was seen as an irritant and red tape. The growers and the processors came to me and said: "This is red tape. We have to put the money aside and it's no longer necessary." We've eliminated that particular operation as well and the money has gone back to form part of a trust fund which will, again, go to research. We have been eliminating some of those irritants that have been out there for the processors and ultimately the farmers kind of got tied up in it.

Those are two particular boards, if you want, that could be classified as being red tape and causing processors to fill out more forms and send off cheques and so on. We've eliminated two of those at the request of the industry. We have responded to those concerns, I think, quite aggressively. In fact, some people have been somewhat surprised that we have responded in such a way.

Mr Cleary: Just a little bit of a follow-up. I realize I haven't done all the research on this next one, but recently a plant closed in our part of Ontario and moved the better part of its operations to Alabama. Four of the laid-off workers decided to go into the potato chip business and started a nice little operation. Of course, they came after me and they told me their venture's run into a big snag. They're having great difficulty in securing Ontario potatoes or any Canadian potatoes. As I said, I haven't got into the background of this. They don't know where to go. I can't help but wonder what's happened when our own residents can't tap into our own commodities and have to purchase from the United States. I guess I would need your help, and I would appreciate any comments you might have so I could pass the Hansard along to these four gentlemen.

Hon Mr Buchanan: I'm going to ask for support here. Anyone who wants to volunteer, please come forward.

I would say one thing: There certainly are potatoes here. In fact, I hear concerns on the other side that we have a surplus. I would add that the potato board not too long ago, without much fanfare -- and I'm not looking for fanfare here -- donated several thousand pounds to the food bank. There are potatoes available. An old problem farmers have experienced in the past is getting their product to market. This may be another example of where we can't get the processor and the producer hooked up together so that one is growing or producing what's needed for the processor. We may have a lot of potatoes, but maybe they're not the right kind of potatoes for making potato chips. That would be my guess, that we don't have the right potatoes or, if we have a surplus, that we don't have the right kind.

I'm sure you're aware, Mr Cleary, of the eastern Ontario vegetable cooperative that is now trying to match what they grow with what the processor and the retailer will sell. I think the problem you've identified can be eliminated if we get a little bit more communication going between the primary producer and the processor. We could certainly grow the potatoes in eastern Ontario; I think it's a matter of growing the right kind.

Having said all that, Bob, did you get elected? You didn't mention the name of the company.

Mr Cleary: The eastern Ontario one, right here.

Mr Séguin: Mr Minister, to answer the question from Mr Cleary, you've covered most of it in your response. The potato board approached us in the early spring. There were considerable surpluses, as there were across all of eastern Canada; potatoes were very available. However, in the last several months, there have been substantial sales and prices have recovered.

I do believe that in the case Mr Cleary is mentioning it could be the type of potato, because certainly in table stock and in our other stocks of potatoes, they are available. They're available at a little higher price now than they were a few months ago, but they are available, if not in Ontario, certainly in the New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island.

One of the concerns the board has now is that this year's crop may also be a surplus crop and that prices will again drop. So processors should have access, unless it's a specific type of crop, a specific type of potato, in which case maybe we could work with the processors to identify what else we could help with to make sure they have access to that stock.

Mr Cleary: I must apologize. I don't have all the information, but I thought it was a good chance to try to get some input.

Hon Mr Buchanan: To reiterate a little bit of what I said, if the processor or the people who have taken it over would talk to the eastern Ontario co-op group that's out there looking to see what they can grow and what they can sell, I think there's a good opportunity here for a nice marriage that would be good for eastern Ontario.

Mr Cleary: I will pass that along. How much more time do we have?

The Chair: You have two minutes.

Mr Cleary: I don't know whether I should get into this next one in two minutes. It's to do with tobacco.

Hon Mr Buchanan: Do they grow that in eastern Ontario now?

Mr Cleary: No, but we transport an awful pile of it. It's to do with taxes. We've got a very thriving business on the smuggling part of it.

Mr Klopp: How well are you doing?

Mr Cleary: Do you want me to answer that? Between the United States and the native reserve, smuggling products that are not subject to any tax, I have to mention that that's just not a Sunday afternoon activity; that takes place nightly, winter and summer, on the river, and it's complete with gunfire and everything that goes with it. This province and our farmers are losing millions of dollars. We're faced with real hard problems there. As I said, we're losing millions of dollars. These tobacco products are shipped all over this province and maybe all over Canada. As I have limited time, I just ask the minister for any comments he might have.

Hon Mr Buchanan: I think you've reiterated the problem, and I accept the fact that it exists and it is serious. I think you're correct when you say that the distribution probably ranges across Canada; maybe up into Alaska even, I've heard.

It's something that is being discussed across different ministries. Obviously, it's not strictly Ag and Food, although when you talk about money for the Treasurer, you have my attention, because for every dollar we lose, potentially we will see reductions in our budget because of lost revenue, so we're concerned about it. We have no active participation in what's happening in terms of how to control the problem and get a handle on it, but I am aware that several ministries are working cooperatively to try to address this. Of course, the federal government is involved in this too in terms of intercountry trade, if that's what you can call the activities that are happening. They have some involvement too, and it makes it difficult when you have so many ministries involved.

But it certainly is a serious problem, and it is being examined. I don't know that anybody has the solution yet. If there were an easy solution, I think it would have been addressed some time ago.

I have heard stories very much like you've mentioned, in terms of the gunfire and the fact that on the river some evenings and nights it sounds like a war zone. I've heard those stories and am aware of them and it's obviously a concern, something we need to address, both on the tax revenue side and in terms of the tobacco industry.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister. It now being past 6 of the clock, our time is up for today. I want to thank you for being here, as well as the deputy minister and the senior staff representing the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. You've proven your dedication to farmers in rural Ontario and we appreciate your presence here.

We have completed four hours and 23 minutes, approximately, of our time, with approximately three hours and seven minutes remaining. We will reconvene this committee tomorrow, Wednesday, June 30, immediately after routine proceedings or at 3:30. This committee now stands adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 1801.