Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House met at 10 o’clock, a.m.

Prayers.

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister without Port- folio): Mr. Speaker, before we proceed with the business of the day, could I take this opportunity to welcome on behalf of all the members of the House, some of my students in the county of Grenville from Johnstown Public School, South Edwardsburg. They are situated in the west gallery and I wish to extend on behalf of all a very hearty welcome to them.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): It gives me a good deal of pleasure to introduce and welcome Mr. Rodrigue, 45 students and three adults from Ecole Notre Dame du Rosaire in Blezard Valley. I would ask all those in the House to join with me in welcoming them.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

REOPENING OF OPERATIONAL SERVICES WAGE CONTRACT

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the House some days ago, the government has been considering the impact of the rapid rise in the cost of living on the wage contracts for which it is responsible as an employer. It is the practice of the government to take the cost of living into account when negotiating salaries for its employees. The more recent salary increases were of the order of eight to nine per cent for 1974.

There is, however, one group of employees whose current salary levels were negotiated in the fall of 1972, and their salary increases for 1974, on average, were approximately six per cent. I refer to the operational services category which contains some 20,000 employees and includes such classifications as manual labourers, various skilled trades, correctional officers, psychiatric nursing, assistants and the people engaged in highway maintenance.

Salary negotiations for this category would normally begin in September or October of this year, and any adjustments would not become effective until Jan. 1, 1975. In view of the unfavourable position of these employees compared to employees in other categories, the government has advised the Civil Service Association that it is prepared to open the contracts immediately with a view to implementing an interim increase for the employees concerned.

NEW SECURITIES ACT

Hon. J. T. Clement (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I would like to announce my intention to introduce today a new Securities Act for the Province of Ontario. The new Act achieves four important objectives: First, it brings together in a more ordered and systematic way, the various amendments to the present Act, which was passed in 1966. Second, this new Act will implement major new policies recommended by the 1969 report of the Canadian Committee on Mutual Funds and Investment Contracts; a 1970 Ontario Securities Commission report on disclosure; and the December, 1973, report of the select committee on company law regarding mergers and amalgamation.

Third, this legislation has been discussed in detail with representatives from other provinces, and we anticipate that it will find acceptance as a uniform provincial Securities Act. Uniformity of regulation for Canadian capital markets is an important objective which we share with the other provinces. In this regard, the new Act which I will introduce today will make unnecessary, recent draft legislation at the federal level which was designed to implement the 1969 mutual funds report. Our new Securities Act will achieve the same result but within the more comprehensive and systematic context of general securities legislation which is possible only at the provincial level.

Finally, we believe there is a need for further measures to protect the individual investor in securities markets. Investors have the right to expect these measures. At the same time, the liquidity and efficient allocation of capital we require from our capital markets depend upon investor confidence in the protection he is offered. This new Act will certainly help to support and increase confidence in the securities market.

The regulation of the securities industry in Ontario has, from its inception, been designed to prevent fraudulent conduct in securities trading and to provide adequate and timely disclosure to the market. The major changes proposed in this new Act will reinforce these two principles.

Insider trading provisions will be strengthened by extending them to all reporting issuers without regard for the form of business organization. Reporting issuers will be considered insiders of themselves, to parallel changes in corporate legislation permitting companies to purchase their own shares. Mutual fund management and distribution companies will be defined as insiders of the mutual funds they manage or distribute. Insider liability will be extended to any person who acts on the basis of confidential information. There will be a general prohibition against tipping insider information and against trading based upon such information.

The self-dealing prohibitions of the mutual fund report have been included in the new Act. Mutual funds will not be allowed to make loans to their officers or directors, its management or distribution company or their associates. Compensation to associates not described in the prospectus will be prohibited as well as self-dealing or insider trades in fund portfolio securities. A statutory standard of care in the management of a mutual fund will take effect and undue concentration of the assets of a fund will be prohibited.

Mr. Speaker, changes have also been made in disclosure requirements and general trading procedures to put existing and prospective investors in a better position to make intelligent decisions. A reporting issuer has been expanded to include corporations offering securities to the public under the Business Corporations Act on the principle that the Securities Act should be all-inclusive in the area of investor disclosure. Provisions for disclosure will apply to all issuers, unincorporated as well as incorporated, and they will also be expanded to include issuers outside Ontario which have obtained debt financing through a prospectus, as well as equity.

To the present requirements of reporting issuers, such as regular financial reports and an annual information circular, has been added the concept of statutory timely disclosure.

Mutual funds will be required to provide a confirmation of sale containing special information such as the price of the share per unit, the amount deducted for sales charges or service fees and the fees payable upon redemption or surrender, if any. Additional requirements will apply in the confirmation of a trade under a contractual plan. The importance of the information contained in the confirmation of trade cannot be overestimated because the period during which the trade may be cancelled begins when the confirmation is received.

The present requirement that registered advisers disclose any financial or other interest they have in securities which are the subject of a written communication, has been expanded to include dealers and disclosure for the dealer’s and adviser’s partners, directors and officers and any others who would be insiders of the adviser it if were itself a reporting issuer of securities. The purpose of this change, Mr. Speaker, is to require registrants of the Ontario Securities Commission to disclose conflicts of interest to the public.

Investment decisions are often made on the basis of information contained in advertising and sales literature used by a registered dealer, rather than the prospectus. Under the new Act, the Ontario Securities Commission may require copies to be filed with it, and the commission will have the authority to prohibit use if it finds the material to be deceptive or misleading,

Mr. Speaker, these are only a few of the many substantive changes which this new Act will bring into being. We believe the small investor will directly benefit from these new requirements.

Whether or not we invest directly as individuals, the securities in the street play an important part in our lives. Through the new Securities Act and the activities of the Ontario Securities Commission, we hope to increase public confidence and assurance in the value, fairness and efficiency of our capital markets.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

ANTI-POVERTY COALITION

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): I would like to ask the Provincial Secretary for Social Development if in fact it was a policy decision that she and the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Housing (Mr. Handleman) have all indicated their unwillingness to meet with the delegation from the provincial Anti-Poverty Coalition when it comes to Queen’s Park today?

Hon. M. Birch (Provincial Secretary for Social Development): Mr. Speaker, no, it was not. I’m not going to be in town and that is one of the reasons I will not be meeting with them.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I couldn’t hear the answer very well because of the rustle of all these papers.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): That is the rustle of votes, not papers.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Did the minister say that she could not meet them because she was not going to be in town?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I wonder if the Minister of Labour could indicate why he is not prepared to meet with them?

Hon J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to reply to that. My position on it is if they want to speak to me in the hope that I may be able to do something for the things that they present to me, then I will see them some time in the future when I feel that I am better qualified to speak to them with a little more knowledge of my subject.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minister is too timid.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Well, I may be too timid, but on the other hand I wasn’t ready to speak to them purely on a political basis. But if they want to speak to me in sincerity with particular wishes or requests that I may be able to help them with, then I would rather speak to them when I have more knowledge. So I am prepared to speak with them.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: In the absence of the Minister of Housing, perhaps the policy secretary could tell why he does not want to meet with the Anti-Poverty Coalition?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware that the minister was not meeting with the Anti-Poverty Coalition.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s a pretty incredible response.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scar- borough West.

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary, if I may: Surely there is something strange, and to be interpreted by the Anti-Poverty Coalition as an affront to their objectives --

Hon. Mrs. Birch: That is not true.

Mr. Lewis: -- that in the 48 hours before they are to come, they receive a call from the provincial secretary’s office, a call from the Ministry of Labour office, a call from the Ministry of Housing office -- all of the ministers collectively turning down the meeting which they assumed they had.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, that is untrue. I was invited to participate, and I indicated to them immediately following the receipt of their letter that I had a previous commitment and that I would be unable to attend.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York Centre.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Yes, Mr. Speaker; would the minister indicate how it would be possible, when the date for this meeting was set two or three months ago, for the minister not to make arrangements to be present at such an important gathering?

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Sure, it seems very suspicious.

Mr. Deacon: It looks very obvious to us that the provincial secretary wants to duck listening to these people.

Sone hon. members: Right.

An hon. member: Evading her responsibility.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, that too is not true. I have commitments up until next November.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: I don’t know whether this should go to the Premier or which one of the ministers involved. How come they suddenly find it impossible to meet as a cabinet group --

Mr. Lewis: That’s right.

Mr. MacDonald: -- with an important group. For example when the OFA has a convention not only will the government meet them but they have gone down and had breakfast with them. They have trooped down as a little group of the cabinet -- as many as possible. Why the distinction? Why the difference in this instance?

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): It depends on who is buying the meal.

Mr. MacDonald: I’ve said that to the Premier because I think he might be able to speak on behalf of all of the others.

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I have never been reluctant to see any group nor have my cabinet colleagues.

Mr. Deacon: They certainly are this time.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If this particular organization wishes to have its executive sit down with a group of cabinet or even myself, I would be delighted to see them.

As it happens, on this occasion, two or three ministers were invited in particular and --

Mr. MacDonald: Two months ago.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, it may have been three months ago --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. MacDonald: And by coincidence that’s all.

Mr. Lewis: They all struck out in the last 48 hours.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The fact is, and I am sure the member for York Centre doesn’t experience this, but ministers of this government have commitments some four or five months in advance that are important and they intend to keep these commitments.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I fully understand that the members opposite will be delighted to meet with them and I can predict now that the Leader of the Opposition will be promising them everything, which is his usual approach to all of these organizations --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Would the Premier write me a speech?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We will be delighted to hear what he promises on this occasion --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- and I would I be delighted to find out how he thinks he can pay for it.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Op- position.

PETROSAR LTD.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, since the Premier is so anxious to take part this morning, I would like to ask him how he -- as probably the best known glassy-eyed supporter of Stanfield Toryism -- can support the Progressive Conservative Party, which has as its policy the establishment of the petrochemical industry in Alberta to the exclusion of the expansion that was already planned here in Ontario, particularly in Sarnia?

Is he prepared to go along with those policies; or will he in fact speak to his friends in the Progressive Conservative Party nationally and have them modify this in the interests of spreading the development across Canada, so that Alberta and Ontario surely can both go forward with the resources that are Canadian, not Albertan?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to sense, from the question from the member for Brant (Mr. R. F. Nixon), that he recognizes that Mr. Stanfield is more than likely going to form the next government of Canada.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can assure him that when that enlightened day happens --

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- about midnight on July 8, I will be quite prepared to make representation to --

Mr. Lewis: Every Friday morning this becomes the House of Commons.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- the new Prime Minister of Canada to see that the proper solution is found with respect to the petrochemical industry, that solution being that the petrochemical industry in this province must be viable and that there is room for both. I assure the member for Brant that we will make these representations.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): The federal Tories are fighting the Premier’s battles.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would say, Mr. Speaker, that I think we would do it with some premonition of some degree of success. I would go one step further, Mr. Speaker, and say that if his friends had dealt with the total issue a year ago in an intelligent, logical and credible way, we wouldn’t have any of this debate at this present time.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Did the Premier have all these penguins with him last night to talk to Mr. Stanfield; all of them flapping away?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I was delighted that there was a number of cabinet ministers of this government at that very important meeting last night, indicating their support for Mr. Stanfield and his approach to the economic problems of Canada today. Yes, some of them were there.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): By way of supplementary, and recognizing that the Premier and his Treasurer (Mr. White) really support a balanced budget, in connection with the original question by my leader, do I understand the response to be, without equivocation, that you as a government don’t subscribe to the policy enunciated by Mr. Hees on behalf of the federal Conservatives, but that you do support the federal government in its initiative to see a balanced growth of the petrochemical industry throughout the Dominion of Canada, and that you will, therefore, support in that context the development of the Petrosar project at Sarnia?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think I would have to say that we are very concerned about the lack of initiative on the part of the federal government, which is the reason we are in this difficulty today.

Mr. Roy: They are fighting the Premier’s battles.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would say to the member for Sarnia that if his friends, the federal Minister of Energy and the Prime Minister of Canada, had come to grips with this when they should have we wouldn’t have this debate. Certainly we want to have a viable --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- industry in Ontario and we will see to it that we do.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Is the Premier going to stay right in the middle on this?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think we stand a much better chance of doing this with an enlightened new administration in Ottawa after July 8, rather than the incompetence that we have seen in the energy --

Mr. Roy: He is not supporting his party.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- policy of the present federal government. The hon. member knows he has to agree with that. He has to agree with that.

Mr. Bullbrook: Excuse me, this is not a question, but I understand the Premier’s answer to be yes.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Hon. Mr. Davis: On a point of order, my answer is yes to the question of the industry, but it is not yes as it relates to the phrasing by the member for Sarnia as to the federal initiatives.

Mr. Breithaupt: A definite “maybe.”

Hon. Mr. Davis: Because if there is one thing the federal government of this country hasn’t shown, that is initiative.

Mr. Lewis: The Premier doesn’t want the Tories to win.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Once more with equivocation.

Mr. Lewis: He wants them to be a good second and then there will be a new Tory federal leader. Does the Premier want to talk to us about that?

Mr. Rm. F. Nixon: I’d like to direct a question to the Treasurer --

Mr. Lewis: Let the Premier tell us of his more hidden feelings?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Lewis: Let him tell us of his real feelings about this election?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Lewis: Let him tell us why he is doing Bob Stanfield in so neatly?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to direct a question to the Treasurer -- not about a balanced budget, because we know his views on that, since this year we --

Mr. MacDonald: Actions speak louder than words.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- have the largest deficit in the history of our province -- but I would like to ask him if his plans for the regional government of Durham, established by this House just a few months ago, envisaged an increase in their direct tax rate of 28 per cent in the first budget, even though $1.1 million had been directly transferred from the budget of the province to the budget of the regional municipality; $1.1 million transferred directly plus an increase of 28 per cent in the first year?

Hon. J. White (Treasurer and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): It is the work of genius to combine two items of misinformation in one short question, so I will attempt to deal with both of these fallacies.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): He is just an ordinary genius.

Hon. Mr. White: First of all, we are taking in $336 million more than we are spending, in contrast to Ottawa which is taking in $2 billion less than it is spending. To have the Leader of the Opposition wandering all over this province either uninformed --

Mr. Roy: Answer the question.

Hon. Mr. White: -- or deliberately misleading our citizens is not constructive at all.

Mr. Lewis: The Treasurer exceeds even Real Caouette in his playing with dollars and manufacturing of money.

Hon. Mr. White: Insofar as the cost of regional government is concerned, the Leader of the Opposition has presumably deliberately gone around using fallacious figures --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Not at all. We get the figures from the Treasurer’s books.

Hon. Mr. White: -- figures which are objected to by the people in the area; objected to by the editorial writers in the area --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What about Durham region?

Hon. Mr. White: -- and which we ourselves attempt to set straight. The horrendous totals which the Leader of the Opposition turns up, completely inaccurately, get the front page and our corrections flow along in a paragraph on page 64.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What about the 28 per cent increase in Durham?

Hon. Mr. White: Insofar as Durham is concerned, these budgets are not decided upon as yet.

Mr. Roy: The Treasurer is such a dumb-dumb.

Hon. Mr. White: I am meeting the chairman and others from the regional municipality of Durham on Monday. At that time I am going to express the views that their expenditure proposals are too ambitious and that they should --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The Treasurer is going to cut them back, is he?

Hon. Mr. White: -- spread these costs over a period of time --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He is going to let the new region govern, subject to his dictate.

Hon. Mr. White: -- just the way I have to do in my own household and just the way --

Mr. Breithaupt: Local autonomy rides again.

Hon. Mr. Davis: What does the member know about local autonomy? He doesn’t believe in it. Ask the hon. member for York Centre about local autonomy.

Hon. Mr. White: I am trying to choose a parliamentary word -- and just the way the nitwits in Ottawa are going to have to learn to do.

Interjection by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary.

Mr. Roy: The Treasurer is trying to act like Diefenbaker. He is shaking all over. What’s wrong with him?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Is the minister going to call in the regional chairman from Halton and slap his wrists for requiring the people of the Halton Hills municipality, formerly Georgetown, Acton and Esquesing, to pay 100 per cent more for the cost of their local government than they paid last year at the secondary level? Is he going to call the Halton chairman and the Halton region in too, to direct what their expenditures should be?

Hon. Mr. White: All of these new regions are going through a budget-making process. They are conferring with my officials and they are conferring with me.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Yes, they are learning the lessons of regional government.

Hon. Mr. White: I had a meeting with the chairman of Halton and certain of his officials one day this week, so don’t worry. We are going to work it out, no thanks to the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Deacon: That is right. The Treasurer is going to have them follow the Queen’s Park bureaucratic system --

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Leader of the Opposition have further questions?

NEGOTIATIONS ON BEHALF OF COMMUNITY COLLEGES

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Yes; I would like to ask the Chairman of Management Board if he can tell us the status of the negotiations involving the 5,500 community college teachers, who evidently broke off negotiations with the Council of Regents as of June 4 on the basis of workload? Is he going to take some other measures available to him under the nefarious laws which govern these negotiations or is he simply going to hand it over to the Ministry of Labour?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, in answer to that question, I think it was properly put as to the way in which negotiations were broken off. We are prepared to sit down at any time and speak to them.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Since the negotiations have broken off, will the government take any initiative to reinstitute them or is it a part of the programme to use the compulsory tribunal which is a part of the law the government got through the Legislature two years ago?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: No, Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question we propose to remain with an open door, and to sit down and negotiate at any time.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Would the Chairman of Management Board make a commitment that if the negotiations go back to the arbitration panel, he will reconstitute the panel as requested by the CSAO?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I will simply say that we will use the form open to us and in accordance with the law.

Mr. Laughren: A further supplementary,

Mr. Speaker: Is the Chairman of Management Board not aware that the community colleges are losing their qualified people who are returning to industry because of the present wage levels; and that they are having great difficulty replacing those people with new teachers for next fall, again because of wage levels being at 1972 levels?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I don’t believe that to be a fact.

Mr. Laughren: Well, it is.

Mr. Foulds: Yes, it is a fact.

Mr. Laughren: One last supplementary, if I might, Mr. Speaker: Is the Chairman of the Management Board not aware that at one college alone, George Brown, there are 30 instructors who have already indicated they are returning to industry?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I keep myself informed.

Mr. Foulds: That is not so obvious.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Op- position.

SPENDING CEILINGS IN EDUCATION

Mr. R. F. Nixon: In the absence of the Minister of Education (Mr. Wells) and the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Auld), I would ask the former minister, the Premier, if he can give some information as to the status of the so-called education spending ceilings vis-a-vis the awards for the York region teachers? Since it’s estimated that it will require money beyond the ceiling in order to meet this award, can we be assured that government policy will not interfere with these payments?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the arbitration award was made public yesterday, and it is still too early to determine this matter; in fact, we won’t know until the end of the board’s current fiscal year. The best guess of the ministry at this moment is that the award probably can be accommodated within the ceilings. We won’t know exactly what the figures are for a period of time yet.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: If the award requires an amount of money beyond the ceilings, will government policy permit this to be paid?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the policy of the government is, of course, to maintain the ceilings. We have always been prepared to discuss legitimate problems with any board. As I say, in this particular instance our preliminary guess it that they can be accommodated within the ceilings, but we don’t know.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. leader have further questions?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scar- borough West.

ALGONQUIN FOREST AUTHORITY

Mr. Lewis: First, Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Natural Resources. What has happened to the Algonquin Forest Authority legislation?

Hon. L. Bernier (Minister of Natural Re- sources): Mr. Speaker, we are working on it and I hope to introduce it before the House rises in the latter part of this month.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, I take it then that the minister is not anticipating that the legislation will be passed before the active use of Algonquin Park this summer, and that indeed the logging operations will continue?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, if we can get the co-operation of the members on the opposite side of the House, I’m sure we’d be able to have the authority established before the House rises. But I doubt that will happen.

Mr. Lewis: The minister doubts it? By way of supplementary --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. Leader of the Opposition should have the opportunity for the first supplementary.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: In connection with that, I would like to ask the minister if it is true there are certain contracts that must be renegotiated to continue the logging operation this summer, and the minister therefore would like the forest authority in place so the negotiations can be their responsibility?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not correct. The licences that have been granted to the operators in that particular area are for an extended period of time, and they would be terminated when the forestry authority is established.

Mr. Lewis: But, by way of supplementary, is it not true that the minister has extended those licences by a year in order to accommodate the operators on the old terms, and has said nothing about that, without establishing the authority?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, these are ongoing commitments that we have with the industry itself. It’s a regular routine for us to reappraise and reissue those licences. We’ve just accommodated them in a normal way. We have done nothing special.

COST OF LIVING PAYMENTS TO GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Chairman of the Management Board. Why is he taking such a mean and petty attitude to the 40,000 civil servants who received a percentage increase for 1974 which all of us knew to be inadequate, which didn’t take inflation into account at all? Even the government of Newfoundland has given a lump sum payment. Why is the minister excluding them from an additional lump sum payment which he strongly implied in the House would be coming for all civil servants in Ontario?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He did imply.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I made no such statement, Mr. Speaker. Let’s start from that premise. I believe that we have dealt with this matter very responsibly.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, does the minister mean that a wage increase that is between two and three per cent below the inflationary rise in the cost of living will suffice for the great majority of the civil servants of Ontario, without any additional lump sum payment? And for the other 20,000 he’s just talking about a contract reopening but won’t, again, guarantee a lump sum payment? How is it that Ontario varies from the other provinces which have granted that additional money?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, it has all been done by negotiation and it will stand there.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary --

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): A supplementary --

Mr. MacDonald: The minister is going backwards.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Did the minister indicate that he did not say in the House that the government was moving towards the solution of this problem with a lump sum payment as was carried out by others?

Mr. Roy: Sure, for all civil servants.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He directly gave a statement in this House.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I think the record will prove that I did not.

Mr. Roy: The minister said he was looking at it.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: That may be.

Mr. Deans: A supplementary: Is the minister aware that major industry in Ontario has recognized the rising cost of living and the effect inflation has had on contracts already signed and has incorporated cost of living increases for many of their employees, I would suspect numbering at least 50,000 in the Hamilton area?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: That is precisely why we are taking the action I announced this morning.

Mr. Deans: That’s precisely why the government should be taking a different action, because the contract that was signed obviously didn’t or couldn’t have taken that into account.

Mr. Lewis: It is all right for the minister to talk about civil service salaries. Let the government take a look at its own deficit.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scar- borough West.

Hon. Mr. White: The socialists opposite would bankrupt this province in two or three years.

Mr. Lewis: The Treasurer is piling up a deficit that is sufficient to attest to bankruptcy.

Mr. Deans: We wouldn’t do it by way of corporate gifts.

Mr. Lewis: The government doesn’t care about prices or profits but who protects the civil servants in Ontario from inflation? Not that government.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Did the member see where Ed Schreyer was in favour of income control?

Mr. Deans: That’s incidental.

LEAD SURVEYS

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Minister of the Environment how is it that he didn’t know of the lead survey of 45 firms which was taken in Ontario in 1972 and 1973 by officials in his ministry until he learned about it during court hearings here in Toronto?

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I was aware that we were constantly doing work on lead in all sorts of other industries on a continuing basis. We always have an update report coming in quite regularly on all industries on the various pollutants that we are dealing with, and not only with lead.

I anticipated tabling that report today. It is at the printers and I will be tabling it probably on Monday.

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary: When we are dealing with something as important as lead, does not the ministry’s air management branch presumably bring it to the minister’s attention immediately so that he doesn’t have to learn about it through a court transcript?

Hon. W. Newman: I am aware of all the lead plants in the Province of Ontario and exactly what is going on and the contamination that is being created by the various plants. Yes, I am aware of them.

Mr. Lewis: If the contamination level is over the ministry’s prescribed emission standards in 24 of the 45 plants surveyed, when is the minister going to change those standards, hopefully in advance of his report?

Hon. W. Newman: That is not correct, Mr. Speaker, as usual. There are abatement programmes in most of these plants at the present time and most of them are meeting our abatement standards. This is an accumulative test the member is talking about, where accumulative soil lead samples were done.

FOOD PRICES

Mr. Lewis: I have a question, Mr. Speaker, of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, that actually presages a question my colleague from Wentworth wants to ask him.

Did the minister notice that officials of National Grocers Ltd. -- one in particular -- has sent around a memorandum to the various stores and the customers of the stores, indicating that a number of suppliers may deliberately increase their prices over the course of the next month illegitimately in order to offset the possibility of any controls which may be imposed following the end of the election campaign? Would the minister, therefore, undertake a careful monitoring, day by day or week by week, within the ministry, to make sure that this doesn’t happen?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I wasn’t aware of that particular matter and I am grateful for learning of it.

As far as careful monitoring is concerned, we are still continuing the monitoring, as is the Ontario Food Council, on almost a daily basis in several parts of Ontario. I can’t say that we are in there every day but we are in there about every third day for our monitoring. I don’t know what my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture and Food, has his people do in their food basket programme, but I know we are in there about two or three times a week. I will take a look at it.

Mr. Deans: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I was going to ask the original question, but I will ask it by way of supplementary. Given that on a sampling of 30 food items in six major chain stores in the Hamilton area over six weeks there is a differential in average price of the total package between Loblaws and Dominion Stores of one cent and between Food City and IGA of one cent, will the minister initiate an investigation under the Combines Investigation Act to determine whether or not there is collusion and price fixing between these major chain stores?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Firstly, Mr. Speaker, I have no authority to deal with that particular statute, it being a federal statute. I would advise the House, and the member in particular, that matters which have come to our attention we have reported to what we consider to be the proper authorities in Ottawa and drawn them to the attention of those authorities.

Mr. Deans: A supplementary: Given that Ottawa hasn’t moved, will the minister initiate an independent study here -- an inquiry -- into the operations recognizing that the food chains admit they hire comparison shoppers to determine prices of nearby competitors before establishing their own prices?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I can’t give that undertaking. I am not prepared to give that today.

Mr. Deans: By the way, who in Ontario is going to protect the consumer?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I could run off in all directions, as they say, with a field of investigators behind me --

Mr. Deans: That won’t be the case.

Hon. Mr. Clement: -- and come into this House armed with statistics. If the federal authorities, for one reason or another, did not see fit to prosecute or did not consider the statistics we have gathered or the information we had available was valuable for the launching of an investigation or a charge or charges under the Combines Investigation Act, I suggest our efforts would have been very unfruitful.

Things which come to our attention and which we feel require looking into, we draw expressly to the attention of our counterparts in Ottawa, not only insofar as what would appear to be price aligning or price fixing is concerned but in other areas dealing with consumer protection, insofar as we receive many complaints a day, and so do the federal people, relating to consumer products and quality of products. There is an interchange of communications back and forth constantly.

Mr. Deans: I am only interested in whether or not there is price fixing.

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker; I find this very interesting. Do I understand the minister correctly that he has referred a number of things to Ottawa? Presumably his information prompting him to refer these things created suspicion in his mind and he thinks they should be investigated. When it is not investigated or when it is not examined adequately, what does he do? What particularly does he do in an instance when his ministry has found or it has been drawn to his attention that over six weeks involving 30 foot items, there is a price differential of one cent, clearly implying collusion in the food industry at the expense of the consumer? Therefore, who protects the consumer in Ontario? Who steps in at that point?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I am not defending the food industry and I’m certainly not defending the people in Ottawa, but I did want to make this clear.

Mr. Lewis: The minister defends the insurance industry; he defends the automobile industry; he defends the steel industry. He is the apologist grand of this Legislature.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I should be a wealthy man, shouldn’t I?

Mr. Deans: He may well be at some point.

Mr. Lewis: They should be paying him. He is right.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Why is it -- may I ask this question?

Mr. Roy: The minister can’t ask questions. Let him try giving us an answer.

Mr. Lewis: Of course, I’ll answer it.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I know he will, even if I don’t ask it. The very basis of collusion indicates agreement.

Mr. Lewis: Not necessarily.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Why is it whenever he finds something that’s similar in price he thinks the worst? Would it not be the influences of the competitive market?

Mr. Deans: They hire people to do it.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Collusion is a criminal offence.

Mr. Lewis: That’s right.

Mr. Martel: The minister will never have to worry about this government.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Does he think he will find a written agreement?

Mr. Lewis: He won’t find an agreement.

Hon. Mr. Clement: The authorities who have the responsibility are not going to launch a criminal prosecution unless they are prepared to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Mr. Lewis: That’s the minister’s job.

Mr. Deans: Why doesn’t he set up an inquiry?

Hon. Mr. Clement: That’s a foundation stone of British justice.

Mr. Renwick: Circumstantial evidence is pretty strong on occasion.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Ottawa East.

PICKERING AIRPORT

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Premier: In view of his wholehearted support of Stanfield and his policies, which we saw again this morning, does he agree with Stanfield who says that if a second major Metro area airport is necessary, Pickering is not the place as its land is too valuable for an air- port? Does he agree with that statement?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, our policy here, I think, has been relatively consistent. Our view has been that if there is need -- and I think Mr. Stanfield’s policy statement brought into question the concept of need -- for a second major international facility, rather than having it go west our preference is east. I think, Mr. Speaker, this has been consistent. I think it is also fair to state --

Mr. Roy: Just say yes or no.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- that as I understand or have read Mr. Stanfield’s observation, he is bringing into question, perhaps, the need for the second facility.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: His concern is for the location. He says it shouldn’t be in Pickering.

Hon. Mr. Davis: He has also pointed out -- and I would be interested to hear from the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Braithwaite) -- there should be no major expansion at Malton which, of course, is not consistent with the policy of the Liberal Party here in the Province of Ontario. Mr. Speaker, I would only say to the member for Ottawa East that if he wants to say to his friends in Ottawa that there shouldn’t be a second international airport, be my guest.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s our policy. We initiated it months ago.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Certainly I’m interested in the observations of Mr. Stanfield as they relate to this issue, but I would say there is nothing contradictory to our own position as it relates to this matter.

Mr. Roy: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In view of the Premier’s answer about location and need, how can he possibly answer this way in the House this morning, when on March 1, 1972, in an annex of understanding it was stated that the governments of Canada and Ontario had agreed to the establishment of a major airport in Pickering township? That’s a written document to which he agreed. How can he possibly give that sort of an answer in view of his position on March 1, 1972?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think it is very simple to give that kind of an answer. I know the member for Ottawa East won’t understand it because of his limited capacity when he is so blinded because of his political interest.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Let me finish it. I say because of his political interest. I would say very simply the government of this province accepted the decision by the federal Ministry of Transport to locate a second international facility, a major facility, in the metropolitan area and it was to be east of Metropolitan Toronto.

Mr. Roy: At Pickering.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If the determination at the hearing is that there not be a second international airport, which would have to be from this government’s standpoint also consistent with no major expansion at the existing Malton international airport, heavens above, Mr. Speaker, we will have no objection whatsoever.

Mr. Lewis: Indeed, heavens below.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s right, certainly.

Mr. Roy: The Premier agreed to the airport.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sudbury East.

AIR POLLUTION IN SUDBURY

Mr. Martel: I have a question of the Minister of the Environment.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The hon. member for Sudbury East.

Mr. Martel: Because of the emissions on Monday which fumigated the Lockerby and Long Lake areas and for which there was no instrumentation by this ministry to determine those readings, what does he intend to do now to ensure that there are adequate monitoring facilities around the city of Sudbury?

Hon. W. Newman: I didn’t catch the first part of the member’s question, Mr. Speaker. I think he is talking about the arcing that occurred last Monday or so in Sudbury from the flume from International Nickel. It was an arcing, a meteorological thing. It very rarely happens. But immediately it was found, and it came down in certain specific spots, there was a shutback of 35 per cent at the plant.

Mr. Martel: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, of the minister: In view of the fact that he had no equipment to do the testing, is it his intention to purchase a portable monitor which could be moved around to cover off those areas where he presently does not have equipment, in view of the fact that he had to rely on Inco’s equipment for that cutback?

Hon. W. Newman: As I said before, the cutback that came, I believe, last Monday was a thing that happens very, very rarely. It’s just one of those things that whether we had a portable monitor or not we would not be able to pick up. As soon as we found out about it, there was a cutback.

Mr. Martel: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: How can the minister determine whether there should be a cutback, regardless of the type of emission on that day, if he doesn’t have equipment to do the testing?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, we have monitors in Sudbury, as the member well knows. We have daily readings on it.

Mr. Martel: There is no monitor there at all.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Grey-Bruce.

YOUTH IN ACTION PROGRAMME

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the hon. member for St. David (Mrs. Scrivener).

Mr. Lewis: No, Mr. Speaker, that is out of order.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member should direct his question properly to the minister.

Mr. Sargent: Isn’t she the Minister of Community and Social Services?

An hon. member: You want the Provincial Secretary for Social Development.

Mr. Sargent: Okay, Margaret.

Mr. Sargent: I wonder if the minister has been talking to the Premier because she has 26 rejections in Ontario for the Youth in Action cost-sharing programme and six of them are in my riding. Not one of them has been approved. Out of all Ontario, six have been rejected from my area. Is there some reason for this?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, I think that question would be more properly addressed to the minister responsible for the youth secretariat.

Mr. Roy: Make it good. The minister is getting well paid for it.

Hon. D. R. Timbrell (Minister without Portfolio): This is the second question. I would like to point that out.

Mr. Lewis: No, that is three.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the difficulty the member refers to but if he would like to send to me a list of the projects submitted I would be glad to look into them and see what the problem is. I might add that all of the programmes have been greatly oversubscribed, which may be part of the problem but I would be glad to look into it as it pertains to the member’s constituency.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Cochrane South.

DREE PROGRAMME IN NORTHEASTERN ONTARIO

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): I have a question of the Treasurer, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the Treasurer could outline what present negotiations are taking place between the federal and provincial governments under the general development agreement as far as northeastern Ontario is concerned? Are there any negotiations and developments taking place toward the likelihood of the signing of an agreement in the near future?

Mr. Laughren: Good question.

Hon. Mr. White: Yes, sir, we are working with the federal authorities in preparing a package for northeastern Ontario; that subsidiary agreement is some weeks from completion. As members know the first agreement was signed perhaps two months ago and affected Cornwall. Either a week ago or two weeks ago today we signed a large package amounting to $42.5 million for northwestern Ontario and now northeastern is getting our top priority.

Hon. Mr. Davis: What we do for the northwest!

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for St. George.

REVIEW OF PLANNING ACT

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Mr. Speaker, my question is of the Treasurer and chief planner. In view of the critical need for a thorough review of the Planning Act as evidenced by the municipalities attempting to pass restrictive bylaws -- such as the

45-ft height limit and demolition control -- will the government honour its long-standing commitment to the municipalities to review this Act so that this unsatisfactory piecemeal kind of legislation will not be forced on municipalities?

Hon. Mr. White: Yes, we will.

Mrs. Campbell: When?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Port Arthur.

HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION INVESTIGATION

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question of the Minister of Labour, if I may. Can the minister tell me -- and if he cannot at the present time, could he investigate -- the state of the investigation of the Human Rights Commission into a complaint filed by a former deputy police chief of Thunder Bay against the Thunder Bay Police Commission on Feb. 13, 1974, under section 4 of the Human Rights Code? Can he find out, if he doesn’t know, why a meeting scheduled for today between Mr. Scarnetti and the Human Rights Commission officials has been cancelled?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I regret I have no knowledge of that incident and that complaint but I will get the information for the hon. member and pass it along to him.

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I might ask a supplementary: While the minister is finding out the information, could he find out why the regional supervisor of the Human Rights Commission in Thunder Bay has been moved to London as a field worker after first being threatened with demotion by the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s senior officials? Finally, what action will the minister take if it is demonstrated that senior officials within the Ontario Human Rights Commission put on pressure to prolong and cool off the investigation of Mr. Scarnetti because of previous political pressure?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I am not sure I heard the last part of the question. Was it what action would I take?

Mr. Foulds: Yes, if it is shown that there has been political pressure on the senior officials --

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I will have to get the information on the matter, Mr. Speaker, and follow it from there, if I may.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Windsor- Walkerville.

REMOVAL OF SAND FROM POINT PELEE

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources. Is the minister aware that Sidney Smith, Jr., the president of the Erie Sand and Gravel Co. of Erie, Pa., reported in hearings in Windsor recently, that sand removed from the tip of Point Pelee in 1969-1970 amounted to 104,000 cu yd; in 1970-1971 to 88,000 cu yd; in 1971-1972 49,000 cu yd; yet the limit set by the ministry was only 25,000 cu yd for each of the years I’ve mentioned?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: This is a substantial overrun.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Essex-Kent (Mr. Ruston) brought this situation to my attention late yesterday and I have asked my staff for a full report. Once I have that I’d be glad to report to both members.

Mr. B. Newman: Isn’t the minister going to report to the House rather than to us as members individually?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I’d be glad to.

Mr. B. Newman: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sandwich-Riverside.

LEAD HAZARD FROM ELECTRIC KETTLES

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations: Now that the list of safe kettles has been issued, what is the minister planning to do to ensure the removal of unsafe kettles from use?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I heard on the news this morning that the federal Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in Ottawa has directed -- as I understand he legislatively has the power to do -- the immediate disposal of certain types of kettles that have these lead-bearing propensities, as dangerous objects under the Hazardous Products Act.

Insofar as the people within the province are concerned, there have been many articles written in the papers and the media have carried it widely. I would only hope that the consumers in this province would look at the list of serial numbers which have been published to find out if they have one of the offensive ones by matching them against their own electric kettle, and if it is on the list, dispose of it.

A thought has crossed my mind. We’ve had several calls in our office in the last 10 days about it. We have indicated to each caller that if they dispose of their kettle, they would be well advised to maim it by hitting it with a hammer or something of this nature so that someone won’t retrieve it out of the garbage and take it to their home and use it.

I am confident that the consumers will respond in this particular way.

Mr. Burr: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary: Would the minister consider --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. There are just a few moments remaining. Other members wish to ask questions.

Mr. Burr: Would the minister consider some kind of plan of replacement by the companies for those kettles which are now deemed defective?

Hon. Mr. Clement: For clarification -- as a government programme?

Mr. Burr: No, would the minister consider some kind of plan whereby the manufacturers would replace the defective kettles?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Not at the provincial level, I wouldn’t, Mr. Speaker. I would hope that the manufacturers of those kettles would replace them at no cost to the consumer. This opinion and hope has been voiced on the radio this morning, too, by the announcer I was listening to at 8 o’clock. I don’t see how this provincial government could invoke legislation forcing people to do something that has been prohibited under the federal legislation of the Hazardous Products Act.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Welland South.

INGLIS LTD. LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Can the minister indicate to the Legislature when his ministry can expect a settlement of the labour dispute between Inglis Ltd. here in Metro Toronto and Local 2900, United Steel- workers of America? I believe their strike is entering its 10th week.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, in regard to this strike, I know that my mediation people are meeting with them. They met with them Wednesday. I’m not sure whether they met yesterday; but the indication is that those meetings will be continuing.

Regrettably, as you know, settlement is a matter of agreement and I’m not so sure when they will come to agreement. I hope it will be shortly.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Thunder Bay.

WATER CONDITIONS AT ARMSTRONG

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. Does the minister have anything to report on action that will be taken by his ministry with regard to the dangerous water conditions and contaminated wells in Arm- strong?

Hon. W. Newman: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the member was telling me about this, and last year --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Stokes: Shut up so I can hear the answer to the question.

Mr. Roy: Oh, sorry.

An hon. member: Is it important?

Mr. Stokes: It is to the people of Armstrong.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, our intention last year was to sink a well at a cost of $30,000 -- but we were concerned about the advisability of it. We are now negotiating with the CNR, which has a pumping station and a filtration plant at Armstrong. We anticipate we will have that plan in our hands very shortly. We will then proceed to put in three communal outlets in Armstrong at a total cost of about $75,000. We would anticipate probably not going to tender because of the location of the area; and, using local help to do it, we would anticipate that we would have that supply in later this year.

Mr. Stokes: This year? Thank you.

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

REDISTRIBUTION OF ELECTORAL DISTRICTS

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, this is not on a point of order, but in glancing at the material that was presented here this morning and at the Gazette, I notice that the commission has set the date for written submissions as of July 12. I will undertake to consult with the commissioner -- assuming that this would be the desire of members of the House -- and ask that that date be extended somewhat, because there may be a number of people who are engaged in present activities up until July 8 and who might need a slightly longer period of time to digest the report and to consult and get advice.

So, Mr. Speaker, if there is no adverse reaction from members of the House, I would make a request to the commission that the date be extended beyond July 12.

The other observation I would like to make, Mr. Speaker, primarily for members of the press, in case there is not complete recollection of the original resolution, is that what has been presented here by the commission this morning is in fact a proposal. They will be receiving written submissions, they will be making a review of them and they will come back with a further determination some time after the period has been decided. I just want to emphasize the fact, so that there is no public misunderstanding, that this need not be the final recommendation from the commission.

Unless I hear from the leaders of the two opposition parties to the contrary, I shall ask the commission to extend the date beyond July 12.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, further to the Premier’s statement --

Mr. Roy: Can I speak on a point of order Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Deans: Since it may be the member’s last chance.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, although we have respect for the commission, there are a lot of possibilities for gerrymandering in this document, and I suggest to the Premier that he should set a specific time, say two months hence, to give us time to put this in order.

Mr. Lewis: Speak to the member for Went- worth.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, if I might speak briefly, I would like to support the Premier’s suggestion that the date be extended, because as you know, if you have glanced at the report, they are doing away completely with my riding --

Some hon. members: Hooray!

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Roy: -- and I will certainly need until past July 12 to make a full submission to tell them that I am not going to take this lying down.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Roy: I have an issue now, I’ll tell you.

Mr. Lewis: They didn’t touch a street in my riding. I’ll win by 175 next time!

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order, I don’t see any electoral population figures in any of the material that has been tabled this morning, either in the Ontario Gazette or what has been given to us, and I am rather perplexed by some of the changes that didn’t occur, which many anticipated would occur in the very large population areas in some of the urban centres.

Do we have population figures? Presumably that will be available to us from the commission. Surely we don’t have to accept all this, without seeing what they have done? When is it coming? How will any of us figure it out?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, Mr. Speaker, I didn’t mean to sort of prompt a discussion on this this morning. The report has been tabled, and I just observed that one aspect of it, knowing that there will be some at least who are involved to July 8. I really thought we should ask the commission to go beyond July 12. As for what information is available, I am sure if members wish to contact the commission, there will be no problem with this at all. I haven’t been presented with anything other that what I have here.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, surely the Premier can take the initiative to have the population figures released when tabled. They were provided in earlier instances, and it’s one of the simple guidelines to do an assessment.

Mr. Lewis: How can we --

Mr. Breithaupt: We can’t make a proposal otherwise.

Mr. Lewis: How do we make a proposal without the figures?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have had a message from somewhere saying it was anticipated that the figures should have been attached. They will be.

Mr. Speaker: Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Motions.

Introduction of bills.

SHORELINE PROPERTY ASSISTANCE ACT

Hon. Mr. Irvine moves first reading of bill intituled. An Act to amend the Shoreline Property Assistance Act, 1973.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, municipalities are now required to repay the province forthwith when individual shoreline property owners pay any portion of loans made to them under this Act. As a result, we have to issue a new debenture every time a partial payment is made to us. This amendment will allow repayments to be made at any time during the life of the debentures.

I will be taking this bill through the legislative process.

CREDIT UNIONS ACT

Hon. Mr. Clement moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Credit Unions Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, the amendment which is proposed in this Act deals with the unprecedented situation that the credit unions find themselves in as a result of the increasing interest rates today. It provides the power to make a slight upward adjustment on the interest rates which the credit unions can charge on loans made to their respective members.

SECURITIES ACT

Hon. Mr. Clement moves first reading of bill intituled, the Securities Act, 1974.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I have no further comments regarding this bill, my having touched on the same in my ministerial statement. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

Clerk of the House: The 25th order, House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FOOD (CONTINUED)

On vote 1704:

Mr. Chairman: Vote 1704, item 2. Is there anything further on item 2 of vote 1704? The member for Huron-Bruce.

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Mr. Chairman, I wanted to mention to the minister a matter that was discussed during the meet-the-members meeting in Huron county. It was a proposition put forward by the Huron County Federation of Agriculture -- and I think the idea is shared by many people throughout the province -- with respect to some amendments in regard to the Farm Products Marketing Act.

The submission was along the basis that the Farm Products Marketing Board should be permitting producer boards to exercise control at the production level as well as at the marketing level. This thought would actually assist in better controlling the large integrated corporations who have hatcheries and feed and processing facilities.

I think the matter was really brought on by the fact that Campbell Soup Co., an international corporation, hatches, manufactures feed and processes birds for TV dinners, and so claims that in actual fact there’s no first sale on the transfer of product sold as a cooked product.

This, in many respects, is much the same kind of thing as we get into with the Brant Dairies case, where Brant Dairies and Walkerton Dairies said: “Look, if we have our own cows and if we produce milk on our own farm, we can sell to our own dairy and we can process that milk and we don’t have to go through the Milk Marketing Board.”

There was a court case on that one, and it came to a head and decision was handed down on Oct. 18, 1972, by the Supreme Court of Canada, in which the Supreme Court upheld the commission and the Ontario Milk Marketing Board.

The case of Campbell Soup, which is now before the courts, is somewhat similar, in that Campbell Soup are saying: “Look, we hatch the chickens, we grow the chickens and then they’re shipped into our plant to be processed for TV dinners, so why should we go through the marketing board?” They’re apparently prepared to spend a lot of money to fight it right through -- perhaps to the Supreme Court of Canada again, I don’t know.

I’m wondering what the minister feels with respect to the Ontario Farm Products Marketing Board extending more control to the local marketing boards, insofar as controlling matters at the production level rather than at the marketing level. More appropriately, I should say that the producers are seeking, in this instance, more control at the production level as well as at the marketing level, not rather than at the marketing level, because I think it has to be done jointly. I think that what they’re seeking is some control at both levels. Apparently it would require some change in the Farm Products Marketing Act.

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Mr. Chairman, since the matter is before the courts I’m sure you wouldn’t want me to comment on it. We’ll be interested to see the results of that and whatever the results are we’ll be prepared to review the matter at that time.

Mr. Gaunt: No. I just used the Campbell Soup matter as an example. I’m not talking about the pros and cons of that particular court case. I’m talking about giving producer marketing boards more control at the production level, that’s what I’m talking about. I brought in the matter of Campbell Soup, but obviously we can’t discuss that because it’s before the courts and the sub judice rule comes into play here. But the fact is that some of the marketing boards, particularly the egg people and the fowl people, feel that their position would be enhanced if they were to have more control at the production level as well as at the marketing level.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Could I ask a related question if the minister’s going to respond to this? Isn’t the power there, inherent in the Farm Products Marketing Act, for a marketing board to take if it so desires? In short, you can move all the way from advertising your product through to the kind of quota and control that you have in the tobacco industry. It is the option of those who are in control of that particular commodity.

If I just may draw in something I said yesterday, it seems to me that at that level, too, with perhaps some pushing and encouragement from the minister, the board should take the initiative to tie the price to cost of production. In short, the whole bag of getting incentive prices that baffles your farm income committee. It would return to the farmer something to cover his cost of production and his labour and his investment.

Maybe, inevitably, in the final analysis, it has to be worked out commodity by commodity. But it seems to me if the initiative is taken in the overall power that is there, as I understand it, in the Farm Products

Marketing Act, that any group can do what the tobacco growers have done for tobacco, instead of doing it as the beef producers have done it. They really don’t have a marketing board, it is just a sales agency or advertising agency.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes, that power does exist. So far, the production controls have only been extended to the tobacco board. Marketing controls are rather an effective method -- they are really production controls, I suppose, in a backhanded way.

Mr. MacDonald: Who grants the controls?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: They are all approved by the Farm Products Marketing Board.

Mr. MacDonald: In other words, if they are asked for then they will --

Hon. Mr. Stewart: It will be considered, yes. That’s right.

Mr. Gaunt: As I understand it, the controls which we are discussing have been asked for by various marketing boards, and the Farm Products Marketing Board has not seen fit to extend the local marketing board’s authority to that extent; with the exception of the tobacco board. That’s the complaint; that’s the point. And this is what the marketing boards, or at least some of them, are complaining about. They feel that it should be extended.

I understand that the Farm Products Marketing Board is rather reluctant to do it, and this is the whole point at issue. The boards are saying, “Yes, we feel we should have this control.” I brought in the Campbell Soup matter because I think this particular case has pointed up to the Egg Board, at any rate, that they feel this wouldn’t have happened had they had this kind of control.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I want to come back to this. I don’t know if the minister is intending to speak to it; but surely this is a new variation of an old theme. I can remember years ago when certain marketing boards in this province were seeking the right to levy in the marketing of the product, so that they would accumulate capital to get greater control of the marketing or, indeed, sometimes of the processing of their product. The Farm Products Marketing Board intervened and said, “No that cannot be done.”

I said then, and I repeat now, it seems to me that this is an unnecessary, crippling measure as far as the farmers are concerned. You are going to leave vertical integration exclusively the prerogative and the right of private enterprise, but you are not going to give the farmers collectively through their marketing scheme the power to raise the necessary moneys for some extension -- and for the moment I can’t define it, because it would vary from product to product -- some extension of their control over that product so that they ultimately get a greater share of the consumer dollar.

The member for Huron-Bruce says that this is the point, that they have sought this power from the Farm Products Marketing Board; and the Farm Products Marketing Board says “no.” Do they operate wholly on their own? Or is it possible for the ministry to say -- if necessary, by amendment to the legislation -- that a local marketing board has the right to seek such power? And if it is sought, will it be given?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: As I understand the Farms Products Marketing Act, any change providing production controls would require an amendment to the legislation.

Mr. MacDonald: Presumably that was done for tobacco?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes, section 12, I think -- or section 18, I am not sure. But one of those sections at the latter end of the Farm Products Marketing Act was drafted specifically to provide production controls for tobacco, per se.

It’s a matter of opinion. The Egg Board -- and I think that’s the board my friend from Huron-Bruce is referring to -- wants production controls. They think that will help them to resolve the issue. It may. Marketing quota controls, if they can be administered effectively, should do the same job. There shouldn’t be any real problem there whatever.

I just think there’s some merit in saying that we should try, insofar as possible, to make quota controls work. I think an enormous hue and cry would go up from the consuming public of Ontario and of Canada if production controls were implemented on a food commodity in this day and age.

I haven’t found too much wrong with the price structure that is being paid for eggs. Now that the American thing has been taken care of, I think the price structure is reasonable. Certainly the prices that have been established, as I understand it, are based on cost-of-production figures. Here again, there is dispute and argument about whether or not those production figures are accurate. There are some in the consumer sector who say that they are inflated cost prices. I don’t share that opinion. So it would seem to me that the quota programme is working reasonably well.

Mr. Chairman: Anything further on farm products marketing?

Mr. Gaunt: Just to wind this up, the minister doesn’t feel at this time that that authority should be given to the local boards, particularly to the Egg and Fowl Producers Marketing Board and the Broiler Chicken Producers’ Marketing Board. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: They have the authority today to implement their quota controls, which are virtually production controls. If they can enforce the quota marketing controls that they now have, I see little reason why the production controls would give them any greater degree of control or authority.

Mr. Gaunt: Than they have now?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Than they have now.

But they have got to be able to enforce those marketing quota controls, and therein may be some of the problems. I don’t think it’s unanimous among the board itself that that’s the proper way to go about it. Some may feel that it is. I think there are others who feel that they can get a handle on some of these over-quota eggs; that they will be able to come to grips with the situation satisfactorily.

But I must say that it would be extremely difficult, even with production controls, to control over-production of eggs. How are you going to do it? Count every hen in the henhouse and the production from every one of those hens every day? In a field of tobacco, you can go out and measure the exact acre- age -- it is right there, on that farm. Now how do we do that for 20,000 hens in a building? How do we know the percentage of those hens that are laying? It might be a different percentage one day than it would be, say, two weeks hence. And the age of the hen makes an awful difference. It’s an entirely different matter than measuring the exact acreage of tobacco, which can be done and calculated in front of everybody. The other matter is an entirely different thing; it’s not nearly as easy to handle as one would be led to believe it might be.

Mr. Gaunt: As I understand it, there is some difference of opinion as to whether or not the board actually has the authority to enforce the quota system as it now stands.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: They have now. We have given them every authority that can possibly be given to them. And amendments were made under the Canada Livestock and Livestock Products Act. That’s where the federal inspection takes place, as I understand it. They have every means of control right now, but again it is an extremely difficult thing to make it work effectively unless you have got the co-operation of the producers themselves. That’s where the problem really lies.

There are many people who are adhering to the quota marketing controls, which are really the same as production controls. But as in every business, you’ve got some people who aren’t doing it -- and how do you find them in these large operations? That’s the problem the Egg Board is faced with here in Ontario, because we have some enormously strong operations at producer level.

Mr. Chairman: Anything further on farm products marketing?

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): I just wanted to ask the minister to tell us about what is going on to improve roadside markets and other types of markets which enable the public to buy directly from producers.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, if we could defer that until we come to the Food Council vote, that would come under it. I would kind of like to keep this under the Farm Products Marketing Act --

Mr. Chairman: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: -- if we could, Mr. Chairman, and then the Milk Commission and milk industry. Otherwise, we don’t have the continuity here.

Mr. Deacon: Fine.

Mr. Chairman: Anything further on marketing?

Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent): Do sales missions of the boards come under this vote?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Food Council.

Mr. Spence: Food Council, fine.

Mr. Chairman: Anything further on this?

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I have a brief point which I think comes under this. The minister was in receipt of a letter dated May 10 from Walter Miller, of the National Farmers’ Union, with regard to the alleged difficulties in getting a refund from the OBIA --

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I dealt with that yesterday, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MacDonald: Oh, did you?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes, I did. I was concerned about that letter and we immediately took action with the OBIA office.

The Act was passed with the intent that whether it was one animal or 100, the refund was to be made. They can collect the refunds, I believe, over a three-month period, or something like that. There should be no hold-up like that whatever.

Mr. MacDonald: Thank you.

Mr. Chairman: Anything further on that? If not, the Milk Commission Policy. The member for Huron-Bruce.

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to question the minister with respect to the market sharing quota allotment issued to Ontario. We were having some difficulty in maintaining our position in regard to the market sharing quota allotment. This was caused by a number of things, mainly, I gather, by the fact that production of industrial milk suffered very greatly in 1972 because of the wet summer in eastern and central Ontario and the fact that many of the industrial milk producers went out of business.

I’m wondering if we are maintaining our share, and if not, what is happening to it? Is it going to Quebec and some of the other provinces? Or is it being held by the National Dairy Commission?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes, we did lose some milk to Quebec. We knew we were going to lose that last year. It was just a question of how much. We lost 8.1 million pounds of butterfat to Quebec.

Under IMPIP, which has worked, I think, pretty well, we have been able to assure ourselves of an increase in industrial milk production, anticipated at the second year of the programme, based on the number of loans that have been made, of 238 million pounds of milk. That’s quite a substantial increase when you consider that our target was 250 million pounds and before the programme is a year into effect we have almost reached the target.

Mr. Gaunt: Double.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: So we have done reasonably well. And while we did lose some milk, we think that the implementation of IMPIP will assure us of losing less milk next year, if you follow me, because next year the programme continues. That is, the provinces that don’t meet their target or their quota of industrial milk production stand to lose again at the end of the dairy year next year.

We have taken this action that I think should work reasonably well. Of course, we are always faced with the concern that has been expressed around here, that there will be continuing drop-outs in the dairy industry. If there are, then that will offset against the increase that we have assured under IMPIP.

Under the IMPIP system the amount projected for the one-year programme in loans is $20,754,000 and we’ve got a guarantee back of 238 million pounds of milk, so that seems to be working reasonably well. Obviously the programme is being used.

Mr. Gaunt: I was wondering -- do we have any chance to recover that lost market share quota once we lose it? You say we lost 8.1 million lb. Do we have any chance in the future of recovering that should our production come up?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: It’s a very complicated situation and I don’t pretend to know all the details but I understand we do have an opportunity if we use all of our -- well, we do have a chance to get it back.

Mr. Gaunt: Would the minister mind if I pursued that? What do we have to do in order to get it back? Do we have to produce up to our quota for one, two or three years? Is there any time limit under which we can recover that quota?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: It’s calculated on an annual basis.

Mr. Gaunt: It’s calculated on an annual basis?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes.

Mr. Gaunt: So if we met our quota allotment this year, we would stand a chance next year of getting some of that 8.1 million back?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I think we will do pretty well to hold -- yes, we stand a chance but I think we will do well to see that we don’t lose more at the end of next year. That’s the concern I have. If we can hold our own -- that is, hold what we have -- and it will be up for grabs by next year, I think we will do pretty well.

Mr. Gaunt: All the programme and direction are aimed at shoring up the production and maintaining it rather than increasing it. What is the situation in Quebec? Are they falling off? I read an article not too long ago that they were falling off as well. If so, where is all this quota going to be reallocated or is it going to be held by the Dairy Commission?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: First of all I have clarification of this now; Dr. McEwen has put this down on paper. If Ontario’s utilization is greater than any other province, such as Quebec, we can regain our market sharing quota. Until just recently Quebec, I believe, was utilizing theirs more than ours so that doesn’t give us much opportunity. We hear rumours about them not doing as well recently but whether that is factual or not I don’t know. The adverse weather affects us, too. The adverse spring weather affects Quebec, obviously, but also affects eastern Ontario just as badly as it does Quebec. I wouldn’t want to hold out any false hopes in that regard because each province would be adversely affected in that connection.

Mr. Chairman: The Milk Commission?

Mr. Gaunt: I used to have opportunity to meet with members of the Ontario Milk Marketing Board almost every morning at Murray’s Restaurant near the Royal York. They used to come trooping in at about 8 o’clock and we used to eat together and they were a great source of information for me. However, they have torn that restaurant down and I have relocated and they have relocated so we don’t have the same opportunities to talk.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: How lucky can I get?

Mr. Gaunt: Nonetheless, I was recalling a few days ago a conversation I had with some members of the Ontario Milk Marketing Board in relation to the difficulties they saw insofar as the industrial milk producers in the province were concerned who were still shipping and using cans. As I understood it -- and I was amazed at this -- some 60 per cent, I believe, at that time of the industrial milk produced in the province was shipped in cans. That may have dropped substantially --

Mr. MacDonald: Particularly in eastern Ontario.

Mr. Gaunt: Particularly in eastern Ontario; I don’t have the most current figure but that figure was amazing to me. The point was made that the policies, the Ontario industrial milk loan programme and these other policies, that apply to the industrial milk industry were actually not fulfilling the need insofar as these farmers were concerned who wanted to shift from cans to bulk. A lot of these people were small producers and so, collectively, they were making up a great proportion of the production here in Ontario. Yet they weren’t taking advantage of the other options open to them to convert, like the capital grant programme and so on, that could be used to install a bulk tank. I am wondering what the minister feels should be done in addition to what has already been done in order to facilitate those people to convert and, at the same time, maintain them in the milk business.

We need the production, dear only knows; we need it, we have to have it and we don’t want to lose them. Yet some of these people say, “If they are going to make me install a bulk milk tank at the cost of $4,000 or $5,000, I am just not interested. I am only milking 11, 12 or 14 cows. I just can’t afford to do it and I am not going to do it. I am 50 years of age.”

I am wondering what the minister’s thoughts are on this. It seems at this point we need something additional aimed at those people specifically to encourage them to remodel and to update their facilities and yet maintain them in the industry.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, the member has raised a point that is of great concern not only to the Milk Marketing Board but the Milk Commission in our ministry. The figures he mentioned are in round figures something like 5,000 can shippers which I think would probably represent about 60 per cent of the total industrial shippers in Ontario. It represents maybe nine to 12 per cent of industrial milk produced in Ontario. It is nine to 14 per cent actually, depending on the type of season we are getting. That’s the percentage produced by the can shippers of industrial milk. The vast bulk of the shippers are producing a very small part of the total industrial milk produced in Ontario.

IMPIP has certainly been geared to meet the transfer wherever it can possibly be made. The Milk Marketing Board’s field staff and our extension branch field staff have been co-ordinating a programme of visiting every farmer, every can shipper, to discuss with him the opportunities under IMPIP and the incentives of bulk hauling to show him the advantages that there would be to him if he saw fit to make that conversion. I think the programme is working rather well.

Sometimes we are critical of ourselves as farmers for not being up on all the latest things that are available, but some of the farmers simply don’t have the time to give to reading all the latest material that comes out. Sometimes it gets set aside and people aren’t as familiar with it as they might be. We found on those personal calls, where you can drop in on the farmer, sit down and talk to him and his wife around the kitchen table and show him the figures, that it’s surprising the acceptance they have. They’ll say to you, “We had no idea that that was available to us. How do we go about doing these things?” We think that it has a major impact.

It’s a bit like the capital grants programme. Do you remember the capital grants programme when we first brought it out? I think the first year we had less than $4 million put out on it. The next year it was $4.5 million, the next year it was up to $6 million, and then it took off. People heard about it and said, “Let’s use it.” So I think this programme is a bit like that.

I tell you, quite frankly, that I don’t know what Management Board will do, but we are going to go to Management Board to ask for a continuation of the programme, because I think that it has now proven its value. Whether we go for the entire programme that is there or not, I don’t know, because we are getting mighty close to the objective that we set for ourselves. But as far as conversion from can to bulk is concerned, I think it has to continue; I really do. And we are going to really try to do that.

I believe we have got the programme rolling. But there are certain areas of the province -- and I think we might as well face the facts of life -- that I don’t think are going to convert from cans to bulk. There will be shippers across the province who, for a variety of reasons, are not in a position to do that. So I think we have to recognize that and make the best of it as we go along.

I understand that in the 12-month period of 1973, there were 486 individual shippers who converted from cans to bulk.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, in regard to that, the minister says 486. As I recall the figures given last fall at the Geneva Park meeting of the county milk committee executives, for the first time the number of fluid milk shippers exceeded those of the industrial milk shippers by about 100 or so, and they transferred 800 back last September -- or something of that nature. They balanced off at about 8,600, 8,700 or 8,800. The minister says nine to 14 per cent of the industrial milk production is in cans of those 8,800 who are producing industrial milk, and only 400 and some converted. Has he any figures to indicate of those roughly 8,800, how many now are still on cans or how many have converted to bulk?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I thought I gave you those figures. There are about 5,000 shippers using cans of the 8,500 or 8,600 total industrial shippers.

Mr. MacDonald: You did; I am sorry, I didn’t grasp it. You see, this brings me back to reiterating a point I made yesterday. I haven’t had the advantage of having breakfast with the OMMB members in Murray’s Restaurant, before or after it was taken down. But I did have the pleasure of two or three days up at Geneva Park when the county milk committee executives were meeting. The thing that disturbs me about this is that I can quite see the rationale of having every possible incentive for people to switch to bulk. Ultimately it will all be bulk, there is no doubt about that, X number of years hence. But at this particular time when we are desperately fighting to maintain the fulfilling of our quotas, when we are desperately trying to keep the production of milk up so that we can maintain the factory quotas, for example, for cheddar cheese and things of that nature, it seems to me folly to bring in something that is forcing a certain percentage of those 5,000 industrial milk producers out of business.

You or your officials may sit down around the kitchen table, and persuade them that in the long run it is in their best interest, and that there are capital grants available and so on. They will respond. But a certain percentage of those 5,000 are farmers who are planning to get out. They will get out now if you force them; they may stay in production for another five or 10 years if you don’t make it rough for them. It seems to me, given our milk shortage, that it is just a little foolish. I can’t see the rationale of policies that are going to force them to get out.

Now, maybe it raises the point made by my friend from Huron-Bruce. If they are going to be denied the kind of loan assistance that is available under industrial milk production, IMPIP or whatever you call it, perhaps there should be some other kind of incentive on a temporary basis to keep them into production.

This is a bit ironical, Mr. Minister, but what you are really doing through all of the efforts under IMPIP to increase milk supply, is compensating for those who are getting out of the industry. Because, as you said, our production levels are going to be roughly the same. We will be lucky if we can hold our quota.

It is rather a folly to be spending a great deal of money here to try to increase production when you have policies that are encouraging people to get out at the other end of the industry because of a relationship of cans versus bulk.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I don’t want anyone to get the impression that we are forcing anybody out of the canned milk shipping business; we are not. We are simply saying that to qualify for IMPIP one has to convert to bulk shipment. I don’t really think there is much wrong with the position we have taken in regard to capital grants supply as well as the IMPIP forgivable loan programme.

When one talks to the people who have made the conversion -- you know, I have never talked to anyone who hasn’t been delighted and wondered why they didn’t do it years before, because it simply is such a great advantage.

There is no target date set at all. There are those who suggest, though, that we have to set a target date. There is no such thing done in any way. We are simply going along and saying, “Here are the opportunities. If you want to convert to bulk, this is what can be done to assist you to make that change.”

But I think we have to recognize, as far as the industry is concerned, as far as the Milk Marketing Board is concerned, the advantages of handling bulk milk and the salability of bulk milk; one has to realize that handling milk in cans is much more expensive to the industry -- from the standpoint of transportation, handling and all the rest of it -- than any other way it can be done.

We would rather encourage them along this way, without saying, as they have said in the Province of Quebec, “Look, you are going to be out of business.” As far as I know, they have deadlines there; no one can ship milk in cans down there after a certain date, as I understand it. We haven’t taken any such action here, and we haven’t any notion to taking that kind of action here at the moment. I don’t know whether that time will ever come.

My friend says that inevitably it will be all shipped in bulk; well, maybe. I have to wonder a bit about some of the very good milk shippers that we have around this province who don’t have the electrical facilities on their farms to generate the kind of cooling required for the movement of bulk milk. We depend so much on hydro to properly cool milk.

Mr. Gaunt: The situation is further complicated by the fact that a lot of the plants have can-cleaning equipment, and that can-cleaning equipment is becoming obsolete.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes, it is.

Mr. Gaunt: When it breaks down or when it is no longer useful, it is found that the equipment is not being made any more. So the plant simply says, “Well, we can’t handle cans. You’ll have to go to bulk.” I think there are some plants, however, that take the position that it is easier to handle bulk milk than it is to handle can milk, so they are forcing the issue somewhat.

I wonder, along the lines of the member for York South, if the commission has ever met with some of these plants to put the proposition to them that they should stay with the cans as long as their equipment is there and is in workable condition. In that way there wouldn’t be the kind of pressure that I have been told about with respect to some of these plants, who are saying, “Look, we are getting tired of handling these cans. It’s harder on our men, it’s harder on our facilities. We just think it is easier all the way around if we go to bulk.” In view of the fact that we are trying to maintain our position in production and trying to keep our market-sharing quota allotment, I think it is important, in the short run at least, to keep those producers who are shipping in cans, producing milk -- in one way or the other.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Well, I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. Dr. McEwen tells me that there have been a series of meetings held across Ontario with both processors and producers, and this has been a subject of discussion in all of these places.

I don’t wish to prolong the debate, Mr. Chairman, but I think it is a very debatable subject when you see the advances that Quebec has made in the production of industrial milk. They are outscoring us in this regard, and yet they have made a concerted effort to go to bulk milk. In fact, there will be no canned milk produced in Quebec within a very short period of time.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, that as soon as a farmer buys a bulk tank he immediately sees that that bulk tank is filled; and he is going to try to keep it filled because, in terms of electricity, it isn’t going to cost any more to operate that whole outfit full of milk than it is to keep it half full. What’s the use of having the investment if you don’t use it? That is the incentive right there on the farm. I tell you, when he gets the advantage of handling bulk milk and he is not lugging cans all the time, he doesn’t mind buying another cow or two and putting a few more heifers in the herd to build up that herd and increase that production.

I think it’s a very debatable point whether a ban on cans would result in more milk or less milk when one considers that the total volume of milk today in Ontario -- in industrial milk -- and that’s the only kind; they can’t ship it to the fluid market; it’s got to go to the industrial market in cans -- is nine to 10 per cent of the total of industrial milk produced. By jove, it is not a very big figure and I think we should really be trying our best to get that conversion programme into place.

Mr. Chairman: Anything further?

Mr. Gaunt: As I understand it, the minister has indicated that his staff were meeting with every one of the 5,000 producers to tell them about the programme and to indicate to them the advantages of conversion to bulk. I am wondering, in view of the fact that last year you had 486 who had converted, if the minister has any figures or any indication of how many of the remainder are prepared to convert?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I don’t think we have those intentions. We do know that the programme is catching on and I shouldn’t leave the impression that we are going to visit every one of the 5,000 this year. It’s done on a county-by-county basis. I think there were six counties we specified in eastern Ontario, to visit every one of them, and that process is on right now. The word I have back from the Milk Marketing Board people and their own staff is that the reception is excellent. It takes fellows time to make up their minds, arrange for the financing, and the building and all the rest of it, but there does seem to be an encouraging result to the discussions that they are having now. I don’t have the figures as what the intentions are.

Mr. Chairman: Anything further on the milk policy part?

Mr. Gaunt: The minister made a speech a while ago indicating that in view of the fact we imported, I guess, about 60 million pounds of butter last year, maybe the time had come when we should consider mixing oleomargarine and butter in order to in- crease our own supplies here and avoid heavy importation. I wonder if the minister has had any particular reaction from that?

I raised it at the annual meeting of milk producers in Huron county. I think it is of some concern to the Ontario Milk Marketing Board -- perhaps not concern -- at least they are anxious to get feedback from their own counties as to how producers feel about it. Producers traditionally have resisted that suggestion. I can remember in about 1963-1964, when we were talking about the Oleomargarine Act, there was some discussion that perhaps this should be done at that time but it was resisted very vigorously by dairy farmers of Canada and the dairy groups within this province. I’m wondering if the minister’s idea has conjured up any support from these groups at this time that wasn’t evident before.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed; I thought I was going to get a reaction right now and I really didn’t. That’s about typical of what I’ve had since the two speeches I made, one at each end of the province.

Somebody said I was flying a kite but I wouldn’t think of doing that. I simply made a suggestion and I have had no reaction -- no reaction. I didn’t get an editorial comment; I didn’t get one letter back criticizing it or supporting it. I had to invite the Cream

Producer’s Marketing Board to come and talk about it. I had to set up an appointment with the Milk Marketing Board to discuss it with them.

I think there isn’t the same degree of interest at all as there was at one time. We’re assessing the whole situation, quite frankly, but it’s surprising. I recall those days when we talked here in this House about colouring margarine and this kind of thing and there was quite a bit of resistance at that time. To me, they now recognize the facts of life because we did have to import about 57 or 59 days’ supply of butter last year. We use about one million pounds of butter a day and we are not producing that in Canada; so perhaps people feel that the time has come to take another look at it.

Mr. Gaunt: As far as I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, if the minister wants some reaction from me, I am quite prepared to give it to him. I think the time has come when we are going to have to do this. I really do. In view of the fact that we are now importing large quantities of butter and it appears in the future we are going to have to import large quantities of butter, I see no reason why if it’s properly controlled this couldn’t be done. I think it would be an acceptable product as far as the consumer is concerned. The producers would have no objection because it wouldn’t be seen by them as an endeavour to weaken their markets, because they are not producing to fulfil the demand at any rate. I think this would be a good idea.

I’d be interested to learn from the minister what reaction the cream producers had and what reaction the Ontario milk producers had, as official bodies. I am sure they have come up with an official position on it. I have never seen it published anywhere and I’d be very interested to learn just exactly what position they did hold in meetings with the minister.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I think the meetings that I had with them were of a purely exploratory nature. They haven’t taken an official position. I understand that correspondence is coming forward soon to outline their official position. As yet we haven’t got it.

Mr. Chairman: On Milk Commission policy. The member for Kent? Is there anything further on the Milk Commission then or shall we go to milk marketing?

Mr. Gaunt: Yes, I had something to say.

Mr. Chairman: All right.

Mr. Gaunt: I am wondering, Mr. Chairman, how the plants are making out with their supply quotas. I used to get complaints every once in a while about the supply quota system insofar as the plants were concerned. I know that Stacey, in Mitchell, were having a difficult time. I think they were operating only two or possibly three days a week at one stage because they simply couldn’t get the milk. This isn’t a very economic operation when you consider the tremendous money that is involved in capital facilities.

If my friend from Perth (Mr. Edighoffer) were here, I am sure that he’d be talking about this, because it was a very contentious issue with him. They had spent a lot of money in expanding their operation; they had gone to considerable effort and yet they were ending up being in production for only two or three days a week. It was bad for them financially and it was bad for their employees.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: The position essentially has not changed. There just simply is not enough milk to meet the processing capacity of the Province of Ontario. I doubt very much that much change will take place until we can get more milk produced. I would hope that by next year when the second year of IMPIP takes effect that there should be a substantial increase in the total tonnage of milk available. But at the moment there just isn’t.

Mr. Chairman: Milk Commission? All right, the milk industry marketing. Is there anything further on that?

Mr. Gaunt: I am wondering if perhaps this would be more appropriate under research; I am not really sure. I don’t think it really matters where we discuss it, but I am wondering how the research programme is going at Guelph with respect to the pricing of milk on the basis of solids, non-fat. I think there was some indication in that we were certainly moving in that direction and I am wondering what has happened in recent months with respect to that.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: The study is currently under way under Dr. Rennie’s chairmanship. It is being conducted by the Milk Marketing Board, as I understand it. It is in the stage of preparation now, so we should have it before long.

Mr. Chairman: Milk marketing?

Mr. Gaunt: I understand that there is a large-scale study to determine the long-run market potential of the Ontario dairy industry. I think it is being conducted jointly by the agricultural economics branch of the University of Guelph and the economics branch in your ministry. When will the results of that study be completed? And presumably those studies will be made public?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I am not aware of that particular study. It could be a part of this other study that has been done on multi-component pricing. It could well be a part of the study to which you referred in the previous question. There is no specific study that I am aware of.

Mr. MacDonald: Just one small point on this. Will your study review the impact of an implementation of moving to solids rather than fat? I was rather interested in picking up from a number of people in the milk industry the fact that the problem of income, for example, in eastern Ontario -- which is a real problem in terms of keeping producers in production -- will be worsened because their milk will not be able to meet the new tests and, in short, it will be another disadvantage.

It seems to me that before we move into some new programme that may be technologically more advantageous, it might be useful to look at the impact once again on the overall production of milk in the Province of Ontario, because we are back to the old can issue again. You may be accelerating the drop.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes, it will be checked out. It has to be, as far as I am concerned, and it will be. We have to know. There’s no point in jumping off the bridge and starting to swim until you know where you are going, and that’s about what we may do.

Mr. Chairman: Is milk marketing carried?

Mr. Gaunt: There is just one last point, and I don’t want to prolong this, but it comes back to the matter of the plant supply quota. I think that in the year 1972 we dropped about 28 million pounds due to the adverse weather conditions. The plant supply quota policy, as I understand it, was designed to protect producers particularly in the class 5 section, which involves processors processing butter, powder and cheese. I am wondering if the minister has had any representations from the processors as to what financial help would be available, or what financial help the minister would consider, or what financial help the commission would consider, to assist them if in fact they can’t operate. They can’t find enough milk to operate more than two or three days a week.

The minister says that’s the problem, we just can’t find enough milk and if there isn’t the milk then of course they can’t process it. But has there been any representation made by the processors as a group, to the ministry or to the commission or to the marketing board, asking for some assistance to tide them over this period until we see whether in fact we can come up with some rationalization of processing facilities?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we have been asked to re-establish the plant consolidation programme.

Mr. Gaunt: And are you going to do that?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: We are not sure; the matter is under consideration. There hasn’t been any positive consideration given to it one way or another. It is a matter that is under consideration, and we haven’t made any determination.

Mr. Chairman: Anything further on marketing? All right, Ontario food market development. I believe this is where the food basket comes in.

Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, I would like to hear something about the council’s work and what is being done, particularly with regard to the roadside markets and municipal markets, in order to bring closer together the buyers and the sellers of produce.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes, Mr. Williams advises me that on the Queen Elizabeth Way at Vineland they are operating extremely well. The stands are fully occupied, the growers are well satisfied, and the customers seem to be receiving it well. The grounds have been improved each year. At Casablanca the stands have been renovated and now there are five larger stands instead of the eight smaller ones that were there when the place was originally opened. They are all fully occupied; the grounds are being landscaped. There are other privately-owned stands and, of course, the pick-your-own type of project has become extremely popular -- and that’s in full swing as well.

He advises me further that a roadside marketing association has now been formed -- I think that is an interesting development -- to improve roadside marketing in Ontario. We have field men working closely with the association and with the individual operators. I am interested to note, as well, that there is a pick-your-own bulletin that goes out on a regular basic to the various people involved.

Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, I think the ministry has been doing quite a good job. I was thinking particularly of the help for some of the private operators of roadside markets.

One of the problems that they are facing is with regard to the zoning of the location of their markets. In one particular area, local residents have been objecting to the roadside market, considering it as a commercial development. Has the minister considered legislation which would continue to classify these market stands as agricultural land when at least 50 per cent of the produce being sold from these markets is actually grown by the owner of the stand? It seems to me that we are going to hit a lot of problems if these people have to face commercial zoning. And we are at a time when we are trying to encourage more direct contact between the producer and the purchasers.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I understand that a farmer can sell his own produce on a roadside stand if he wishes; that’s his prerogative. He grows it on the farm and it is sold there. But if someone decides to open a fruit market, ostensibly as a roadside stand, and he is not the grower, he is just another businessman in the community. Therefore, he takes his chances on getting approval for his application to establish that business, the same as any other businessman does.

Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, I understand that. But since a lot of these operations grow at least 50 per cent of the produce they sell at the roadside location, would that not be a reasonable criterion for the association to consider as a local producer situation?

It is almost impossible for these operations to be set up when they are only selling their own produce. There are better locations on one road than on others. Some owners co-operate with others nearby and sell produce raised by others. Surely we can set a standard whereby roadside markets would not be considered as commercial enterprises, as long as there were a minimum of at least 50 per cent of the produce grown by that particular owner.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes, but let’s think about the other businessmen in the community. My guess is that the other businessmen in the community are raising a fuss about that fellow down the road.

Mr. Deacon: No, they aren’t, but the local residents are.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Who?

Mr. Deacon: It is the local residents who are concerned.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: There again, it is zoning. He is generating a business there. I suppose if any other businessman came out and tried to locate in the same place to sell some other type of commodity, he would have to face the zoning regulations the same as anyone else.

I have some reservations about jumping into that one. We don’t control that legislation. Those are zoning regulations. The people who are objecting to it are objecting to it under the legislation that provides for zoning of this kind of land.

Quite frankly, we support roadside stands. We think a farmer growing his own produce on his farm should have the right to sell it on the road, providing he is not generating a traffic hazard that is abnormal. We fully support that and we support the stands that have been built on the Queen Elizabeth Way. We think these are good things to have. But for me to stand here and say that we would recommend that someone be allowed to flout the local zoning bylaws of the municipalities, I would have some reservations about that, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, what are the regulations with regard to the use of the stands on the Queen Elizabeth Way? Are they only available for use of produce produced by the actual operator of the stand or can they bring in anybody else’s?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Just as long as it is Ontario produce, it can be bought by the person who operates the stand. The person leases the stand and in some cases, contracts with people to bring it in. Sometimes they have some of their own. It is a joint venture. There is no requirement that they have to grow it all themselves.

Mr. Deacon: Are those stands zoned commercial?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I don’t know whether they are zoned commercial or not. I wouldn’t think they are. They are built on Ministry of Transportation and Communications property and they are built off the highway. You just don’t pull into them. You have to drive off and they are in separate areas. One of the problems we had was they were a little difficult to get at, but now the people have found out how to get to them, there is no problem at all.

Mr. Deacon: Would there not be good reason for having the same sort of regulations apply to these other types of markets because, after all, it is much the same situation with these roadside markets is it not?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: No, it isn’t the same situation at all.

Mr. Deacon: The only difference is that in the case of the Queen Elizabeth Way the property is owned by the government of Ontario and in the other case it is owned by a farmer.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I haven’t anything to add, Mr. Chairman, to what I have already said.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Kent.

Mr. Spence: Mr. Chairman, on Ontario food marketing development, I believe the Food Council comes under this vote. I wonder if the minister could inform me, when the Food Council was set up, was it to deal with vertical integration? We hear now that the consumers in the different cities across the Province of Ontario are complaining about the high cost of food. I often think that this Food Council could do a lot towards informing the public that it isn’t the producer who’s getting the prices that they have to pay in the store. There is somebody in between gouging the consumer.

As the minister knows well, in the last three or four months prices of farm produce in general have been going down, but in the chain stores we see the prices of food products going up. From time to time, the consumers are saying the farmers should be rich.

I think last night the member for Essex-Kent (Mr. Ruston) brought to the attention of the House the cost of transporting the food from the farm into the chain stores or into the cities, which was a considerable cost to the consumer. I have a list here of some of these things.

They made a survey on the period from Jan. 1 to April 1. A pint of ice cream was selling at 31 cents and on April 1, it was selling at 33.3 cents. There was an increase of 7.4 per cent in three months. And then we have shortening. At that time, the pork prices had dropped tremendously and half a pound was selling at 55.5 cents on Jan. 1 and April 1 at 65.2 cents, an increase of 23.3 per cent. A 9-oz. jar of jam was selling for 54.6 cents on Jan. 1 and on April 1 for 68.6 cents, an increase of 25 per cent. Apple juice was selling at 59.7 cents on Jan. 1 and on April 1 63.9 cents, an increase of seven per cent. A can of tomatoes was selling at 41 cents on Jan. 1 and at 44.8 cents on April 1, an increase of 9.3 per cent.

This is a concern to the farmer, as well as being a great concern to the consumer. I don’t think your Food Council was set up to look into the cost of food or the difference in prices between the producer and the consumer. As I said before, I thought it was to cope with vertical integration. But I wonder if you could give consideration to seeing if the Food Council could do something to inform the public. We have Statistics Canada figures, of course, but I think the Food Council could do a better job to inform the consumers in the Province of Ontario about the price spread between the producer and the consumer.

I wonder if the minister could inform us if he is giving any consideration to changing the duties of the Food Council. I think it would be a good thing and it would be appreciated by the consumers and the producers, because it’s a concern to the producers that the consumers have to pay this much for food when they are getting considerably less. I think that if the ministry informed the public a little bit more, they would realize who was getting the larger share of the price spread between the producer and the consumer.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the member’s advice is good, and we will do what we can. We do publish a food basket report, which only reflects 147 food items on the average as I understand it. When one considers that there are between 7,000 and 8,000 food items in the normal food store, one can see the enormous job it could be to try to give those comparative figures every month or every week.

Mr. MacDonald: The minister said the advice is good, but he got that same advice last year and I don’t know what more has been done in the interval. This is precisely the kind of programme that has been initiated quite intensively by the Minister of Agriculture in Manitoba with the result that there are weekly reports made available to the public in terms of the spread between farm gate receipts and consumer prices.

Last year, when we were discussing the food basket, I expressed some utter amazement in discovering that such a thing existed and was mildly chastised by some people for not knowing of its existence. I don’t normally sleep around here, so I thought I had caught most things that were going by. I was somewhat reassured, in my state of ignorance, to discover that key people in the media weren’t even aware of it -- although others were, those directly in the marketing field.

However, be that as it may, it seems to me that the basic job is being done in terms of the minister’s food basket, but much more is possible in terms of public information and public education. I know that reports come out periodically, but something has to be done to jazz them up or to capture the attention of the media for their use. About a month or two ago, I was rather intrigued to see, on the women’s page in a section of the Globe and Mail, a story with a two- column head regarding the food basket. I said to myself: “Ah ha, maybe we’re getting a little bit more attention, a little more publicity about this work that has been going on now for four or five years.” The reason it got a story was the food basket price had gone down one cent. It was sort of a newsy point that from the time of the last release the price had gone down one cent and so it was worthy of a headline.

My point is simply to back up what the hon. member for Kent has said. I said it last year, and it is being done in a much more intensive way in other provinces to bridge the gap or to enlighten the public with regard to the reason for food costs. As I said in my leadoff, when you bear in mind that in agriculture today, the farmer, the primary producer, represents only 20 per cent of the food industry and the other 80 per cent is made up of that growing group of middle-men, the public has to be informed. Members of the public won’t then equate the food industry with the farmers and fix the whole blame on the farmers if there is an increase. Notwithstanding the interjections of my friend the member for Wellington-Dufferin (Mr. Root) and sometimes from --

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Prince Edward?

Mr. MacDonald: No -- who says we are espousing the cause of labour and want to cheat the farmers, when in fact we’ve been doing more to champion the cause of the farmers in terms of getting a fair return on a rational planned basis. Let me put it unprovocatively; we have been doing as much as any other party. That’s as unprovocative as I can make it for the moment. We are going to continue to do that but there is a public education programme needed.

I submit it is in the interests of a ministry whose name is now Agriculture and Food to recognize it is speaking on behalf of the consumers, those who are eating the food, as well as those who are producing it.

To sum up, it seems to me you are doing a good deal of research work. You have all of the surveys being done for the food basket. I have a feeling much more use could be made of them in terms of public education.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Thunder Bay.

Mr. Stokes: I would like to engage the minister for a few moments on the Ontario food basket as it pertains to northern Ontario.

Your colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Clement), has conducted a survey and there is a clear indication in that survey that the cost of the items contained in the food basket is as much as 15 per cent greater in Thunder

Bay. That was the only area of northwestern Ontario they studied. In that study it was as much as 15 per cent higher than other areas in the province which were included.

You can add several percentage points to that when you go to the outlying areas such as Geraldton, Manitouwadge, Marathon and areas along the main transportation corridors. I am wondering if, in the monitoring you do with regard to the Ontario food basket, you do a comprehensive survey within the region? Of course, my friend, your parliamentary assistant, was up there about a month to six weeks ago and I am sure people made him aware of the discrepancies in the prices in northern Ontario compared to other areas of the province.

Of course, when we ask why is there the disparity, we are told it is transportation costs. Yet when I talk to people who are in the business, the transportation field, particularly one from Thunder Bay who brings paper products down from the city of Thunder Bay to Toronto and takes back a load of canned goods, I am told the rates he charges do not justify what it costs us, the consumers, for a minimum shipment of

70,000 lb.

You will note the cost of shipping canned goods may be about $1 per cwt, yet when you transfer that cost to a particular can you will find it’s two or three times as much -- that is, the markup.

I am told by the people in the transportation field that they aren’t the culprits nearly to the extent that the retailer would have you believe, or even the wholesaler for that matter.

I want to find out from the minister if he will undertake in concert with his colleagues to monitor those costs so that we can see whether they are justified in terms of distance, in terms of volume purchasing and in terms of the actual costs of transporting those goods from the major distributors down here around Metropolitan Toronto to areas in northern Ontario.

More important, since it has been the express aim of the government to see and to ensure that all people in the Province of Ontario are going to be given a fair shake, regardless of where they may live, I want to remind the minister there are places in the Province of Ontario where they are paying as much as $1 for a loaf of bread, 35 cents for an apple and 30 cents for an orange. Indeed, there are many such areas in the northern part of this province.

I want to refer you particularly to Fort Severn on the shores of Hudson Bay where they have never seen fresh vegetables. When I ask what the price of potatoes was at Fort Severn, I was advised that they never see fresh potatoes. The only potatoes they get are the little peeled ones that come in cans. They are shipped up via Moosonee by barge along the west shores of James Bay and Hudson Bay, serving communities like Fort Albany, Attawapiskat, Winisk and Fort Severn. They get all of their supplies and all of their produce in by barge once a year by courtesy of the Hudson’s Bay Co.

When I asked the then federal Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs if they would intercede on behalf of those people in those remote communities to see if some kind of subsidy could be effected whereby they would get their food staples at a more reasonable rate, the reply I got was that they didn’t think it was necessary to undertake any kind of programme to assist in the cost of transportation because those people usually lived on things that were found in the area. You are talking about caribou, fish, the odd moose and bannock. Those are the staple foods in many of those northern communities.

When I asked if he wouldn’t undertake a survey to see whether or not the people up there weren’t suffering as a result of an unbalanced diet, he said if they ask we will give them vitamins as a supplement to their regular diet. They didn’t think there was any need to do anything about it. From that response I assume they just weren’t interested or didn’t care. These are things I am sure don’t preoccupy the minister on a day-to-day basis, because he is not confronted with the problems of the people living in the far north to any great degree.

Is there any way, through the moneys made available in this vote, whereby you could undertake a realistic monitoring of the foods that are necessary, every bit as much in the far North as they are here, although their eating habits are much more modest than ours and they don’t aspire to all of the delicacies that we do? But when it comes to something as staple as fresh meat, fresh vegetables and things like that that you and I take for granted, is there any way you can get somebody within your ministry to monitor those and see if anything could be done by way of research or co-ordinating within the resources policy field and the social policy field to see that those people can have access to staple foods at a much more realistic rate?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I appreciate what the hon. member has suggested, Mr. Chairman. I’m not sure we can provide fresh meat in that area all the time, but we’d be glad to do whatever is possible. He has certainly raised a valid point.

Mr. Chairman: Ontario food market development.

Mr. Spence: Mr. Chairman, can we, under this vote, discuss sales missions to Europe?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes, yes.

Mr. Spence: How many agricultural sales missions went overseas this year? I know members of the white bean board went to Europe and England. I must say they came back with a good report and they did a great job for the white bean industry of southwestern Ontario. I would just like to know if the minister could inform us if he intends to have more sales missions this year, or what his plans are in regard to the sales missions?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: We had eight sales missions. There were 33 food processors, handlers of food, and that includes marketing boards. They displayed over 190 products on those missions.

I think it is safe to say that they achieved phenomenal success. They have been really outstanding, escalating upwards every year. For instance, there was a $15 million total increase in one year. Last year we were over half a million dollars and we’re still going up.

Mr. Chairman: Anything further on this item?

Mr. Gaunt: Yes, on missions. The minister mentioned there were eight this year involving 33 firms?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes.

Mr. Gaunt: I gather that the number of firms involved has dropped. I believe there were nine missions the year before, with 43 firms involved.

I was looking at the Ontario Agriculture and Food export figures for the various years since 1967; and using 1967 as a comparison year, 1972 was rather revealing. We’ve increased our exports to the United States substantially; we’ve more than doubled our exports to the United States in that five-year period. We have dropped as far as the United Kingdom is concerned, and I don’t think that can be attributed to the fact that Great Britain is now in the European Common Market, because the figures have remained relatively constant since 1969. So the drop there must be attributed to something else.

I notice that as far as the European Common Market is concerned we’ve dropped substantially. We’ve just cut our exports to half what they were in 1967. The Caribbean is up slightly and the Japanese market is certainly up from what it was in 1967.

I’m wondering what the circumstance is, insofar as Great Britain and the European Common Market are concerned. The figures here indicate that both have dropped substantially, and both dropped substantially prior to Great Britain’s entry into the European Common Market. I wonder what’s happened there, and I’m wondering what we’re doing to try and involve ourselves to a greater extent in those markets?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Part of the change is the difference indicated in the type of product that we’re shipping there. Canned product is not nearly as popular as the frozen product is. So the frozen product has escalated in acceptance in the United Kingdom and that’s where the emphasis is going to be. It certainly has been in the last year and will be in the future.

Of course, some of this is attributable in some degree to the European Common Market. That has had an impact. I would suppose the fact there isn’t cheese going over there is another factor. Some things are dropping down in acceptance over there and somethings are increasing. Corn, peas and this kind of thing are really accepted well over there -- that is the frozen product.

I would think that, while we may have a change in type of export, we’re looking forward to maintaining pretty satisfactory shipments of certain commodities, but there will be fewer commodities than there were before.

Mr. Chairman: Does this item carry?

Mr. Gaunt: For instance, in 1967, we shipped out of Ontario $111 million worth of food produce to the United Kingdom. We shipped to the European Economic Community, $35 million. In 1972, to the United Kingdom, we are down to $96 million; to the European Common Market we are down to $18 million.

The minister says we are shipping different products, a different type of product, to these countries now compared to 1967, 1968 and 1969 when the exports were quite high. I am wondering whether the minister and the Food Council consider the markets worth pursuing to the extent that you are prepared to undertake more missions to those areas of the world?

I notice that a lot of your trade missions are geared to the United States; maybe they’ve paid off because we have certainly more than doubled our exports to the United States. I am wondering if the same kind of success couldn’t be attained by undertaking a pretty vigorous campaign and sending more missions to the United Kingdom and the European Common Market. I understood these parts of the world were still good markets for our produce and I think we should give that some consideration.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: It is difficult to explain the exact reason there is a change in those exports. I think I have to say that canned goods are simply not moving as far as our produce is concerned. We are virtually out of canned shipments; we were in it in a pretty big way at one time. There has been a change in buying habits and we are not competitive in that particular field. Now we are with frozen stuff.

We have been in the food fairs over there and as you know we have Ontario House; we have an agricultural man there and we have a very active export promotion group here. We would like to think there is not much point in sending missions over there to explore possibilities which we don’t think really exist when we have people right on the spot; and we do have food fairs over there.

We ship these various commodities over and they are tried out to get an idea of consumer acceptance. We are going into the food fair in France this year. We have been in food fairs in Germany. This is how we got into those markets. Potentials have to be explored but there is, to my mind, not much point in sending off trade missions unless we have some idea of success, because they are very costly.

Mr. Gaunt: We did send a trade mission to Japan as I recall.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes.

Mr. Gaunt: I understand that it was quite successful.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: It certainly was.

Mr. Gaunt: Are we thinking of other trade missions to Japan? What is the situation there?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes, there is another trade mission going to Japan this fall.

Mr. Gaunt: What products are they intending to promote?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I don’t have the details of that right at my fingertips. Pork products is one of the commodities; frozen vegetables, this kind of thing. Soya beans, of course, was one of the big exports we had a year or so ago. We’ve broken into that market and we think there are some opportunities in white beans as well. As a matter of fact, I believe -- my parliamentary assistant may know more about this than I do -- the White Bean Marketing Board discovered a market for split beans. There is, I think, great potential over there; and they are interested as well in supplying white beans to the Japanese market.

There are opportunities but it takes a long time to get your toe in the door. Once you do get a market established and get somebody handling the product and out into the distribution channels you have to have the people accept it; it’s a different type of product from what they are used to. It is just a matter of pushing it, and I think we have met with pretty fair success in that area. We are certainly exploring every possible avenue we can to increase the export of commodities from this province.

At the same time, the Food Council is tremendously interested in generating the kind of production in this province that will replace imports and I think that’s equally important.

It’s true that exports to the United States have increased tremendously and I suppose that it just makes good common sense. That’s the market closest to us. It has an enormous population, particularly the eastern half of the United States which is so close to us in Ontario. We are closer to it than some of their own markets in their own country -- I should say their own production areas in their own country -- so we have exploited those markets. We have also had an opportunity in the Caribbean to do some pretty good business.

I am pretty proud of the export development branch we have in our ministry. I think they have done a tremendous job in getting into an area which they were really not in just a few years ago, so we are all for it. I think we should exploit every opportunity to sell wherever we can and then produce to meet that demand. I would far sooner do it that way than build up the commodity, have a great big surplus; and then run off in all directions trying to sell it and next year everybody is disappointed there is no place to sell it. I think you have to build these things step by step and then gear production to that particular quality of product that those people want.

Mr. Spence: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister, did we get a report from the Food Council this year? As I understood it, the Council was set up to deal with vertical integration. We were concerned about vertical integration a number of years ago. I wonder if the minister could inform us, is vertical integration still a great threat to us here in the Province of Ontario or what is the report of the Food Council?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: It’s certainly a concern but I don’t think one could say it’s a great threat. As a matter of fact, every processing company that I know of in Ontario that is handling processed product -- that’s frozen stuff and I believe canned stuff as well -- is sold out now of the entire 1974 production. That’s just how good the market really is.

There may be some companies that have expanded the leased acreage they are growing on, but they have also expanded enormously in contract acreage as well. New companies are coming in, new plants have been built, others have been strengthened. So I think overall, while vertical integration has certainly not been eliminated, I believe that it is being contained and perhaps contained by the negotiations between the respective commodity boards and the processing plants themselves; of course working with our ministry to some degree.

Mr. Chairman: Anything further on this?

Mr. Gaunt: With respect to Japan, if I just may go back to that discussion, Mr. Chairman, like many other countries in the world Japan I imagine will have less foreign exchange money available because they are paying higher prices for their oil. I wonder what impact this will have with respect to our exports. Is it the view of the ministry that we will be able to maintain our exports to that country along the lines of 1972 and 1973, or is there going to be a slight cutback reflecting this additional pressure and the changing conditions with respect to the oil situation?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Well, our exports to Japan, I believe, increased from $6 million to $12 million last year, which is a sizable jump.

Mr. Gaunt: Doubled.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Doubled, yes. We are concerned, naturally, and I think I mentioned that in my opening remarks a few days ago or in reply to the remarks made by the opposition parties on export problems. We are concerned that Japan, like many of the European countries, finds itself spending dollars we would like to see it spending for food on oil, or for energy, whatever it may be. That’s bound to have an impact.

As I mentioned the other night, Australia and New Zealand have been cut off from all beef exports to Japan for a month, effective I believe Monday of this week. That’s going to hurt and they are going to be finding places to unload that commodity.

We are concerned as well that there has been a slowdown in the exports of pork from the other provinces, particularly in western Canada, which had made deals with Japan. We had been in on the pork deal too. There was a good deal of it going from Ontario.

We are concerned about it, quite frankly, and yet I was encouraged to learn in the last report from our Japanese delegation, which just came back a few weeks ago, that there is a potential there for pork at a price; that perhaps there will be a much stronger price than there is in our market today. We hope to exploit that. If the Japanese can clean the glut of pork they’ve got in their storage areas now, then we think there are opportunities to get back in there with some substantial exports of pork, perhaps by this fall.

There certainly was a slowdown -- there is no question about it -- in pork moving in Japan itself. I’ve heard some incredible stories from over there. Our producers get pretty desperate, but their producers got so desperate that some of them were jumping in front of trains because of the low price of pork. That’s taking it to the extreme. But it does point out the fact that there was a real problem there. I would hope when that’s straightened out we’ll get back in the business again. We’re going back this fall to see what we can do.

Mr. Gaunt: May I ask the minister, are we competing with the Danes for that market?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: In Japan?

Mr. Gaunt: Is there much Danish pork going in there?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: That question was never asked of me before. Mr. Williams suggests that we’re not. The Danes, I believe, really have been into the UK market and to some of the European Common Market countries, but I would be doubtful if they were stepping into Japan. I can’t say positively just how much they’re in.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Can the minister give us any information under this vote about the tobacco exports, or did he discuss that under the marketing board vote?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: That really doesn’t come under Food Council; it would go under marketing if there is a question on it. I think they’re quite substantial, however, and just by way of comment, I believe that they are very satisfied with the prospects for next year.

Mr. Chairman: Is there anything further on this item?

Mr. Stokes: Yes, sir. I was just going to ask one final thing, with regard to one specific product, corned beef.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Corned beef?

Mr. Stokes: Corned beef. We see it from Argentina and Australia, and it’s a thing that always fascinates me when I go into a super market and browse around. It’s one of my favourites for sandwiches and corned beef hash and things of that nature.

I’m wondering why it’s profitable for these people to process corned beef in Argentina, Australia and New Zealand and ship it here. For every can of locally processed corned beef you see there are two or three cans from half way around the world. What are the market forces at play that makes it possible for them to compete in terms of price and quality with that particular product?

It’s something that has always bugged me. I like to buy Canadian where I can, but if I’m going for a can of corned beef I’m hard pressed to find one that was processed in Canada. Can the minister tell me the reason for this?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: No, the minister can’t. But the member has fluttered my interest in this thing and I’m going to find out why. I don’t see any reason why it couldn’t be processed here. Maybe it is; I don’t know. But I know what the member is talking about, that it does come in from Argentina and Australia --

Mr. Stokes: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: -- and we’ll take a look at that.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Huron-Bruce.

Mr. Gaunt: I just have two other items on this vote. I’m very interested in the import replacement programme of this department. I think the ministry has done a good job in this area as nearly as I can determine.

I was interested to note that a project involving the white pickling onion was undertaken and I believe some progress was made in that area. I think there were some problems in finding suitable varieties and getting the processing facilities in place, but I understand that the minister’s projections indicated he would have a fairly viable industry in that connection by the year 1973-1974 which means the current crop year.

I’m wondering if the minister’s projections were over-optimistic, or are we going to be able to come up with a very good and viable white pickling onion industry?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes, we are. I understand the limiting factor is the availability of seed to do the job we want to do. But we’re on the way, and there is a substantial increase in acreage again this year, I am told. So that industry is going to come along and will replace the several million dollars worth of imported products that have come in in the past. We hope that will build up; we think it has very great potential.

Mr. Gaunt: So you have enough growers? It is just a matter of seed -- you don’t have enough available?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: If we could get enough seed we could get the growers; but the problem is to get the seed.

Mr. Gaunt: Right. So that this industry, when it is in place, will presumably replace entirely the imports that have been coming in?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: We will hope so.

Mr. Gaunt: Now the minister says several million dollars -- $5 million, $10 million?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Was it $9 million of imports that came in? We would hope to be able to replace that. How soon we will be able to do it depends really on how soon we can get it expanded. Mr. Williams is estimating three to four years to get our seed supplies built up to do what we have to do.

Mr. Gaunt: There was also some interest in redeveloping the frozen strawberry industry. I think there were some problems with that one, and I don’t know whether it really got off the ground or not. What is the situation there?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: There is no way we can compete with Mexican strawberries; we just can’t do it.

Mr. Gaunt: So you have scrapped that idea? You are not going to pursue that any further?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: No.

Mr. Gaunt: What other areas are you pursuing with respect to import replacements? I was very interested to learn that an Ontario firm has come up with a “Bloody Mary” mix, which is sold to the airlines. They used to import part of that product, I understand, but now we have our own producer.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: That’s one of them. We also imported enormous quantities of tomato paste, and we are certainly expanding that industry right here in southwestern Ontario now. A good deal of that will be grown here rather than imported.

There is the clingstone peach project that I talked about the other night. We will be expanding that up to several thousand acres of peaches; and we have entered into contracts with the nurseries to grow those little trees.

This is a project that will extend over about three years, I believe, which involves planting peach trees of the clingstone variety. Now that is a direct import replacement project. We think if there is sufficient protection provided to the growers and to the processors -- and there is no question that we can grow them here -- we will be into the business. We have enough faith that Ottawa is going to do something through the meetings that were held last winter that we feel we can safely embark on that kind of a project. There is no sense in embarking on a project if you are going to have the rug pulled out from under you as soon as you get it rolling.

Mr. Gaunt: So that’s the only additional one we have?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I would think they are fairly substantial, Mr. Chairman. We have more beef in this country than we know what to do with, as far as beef replacement is concerned; we have ample pork supplies here now; and it would seem to me that those are import replacements, very largely.

Mr. Chairman: Anything further on this item then?

Mr. Gaunt: I have one more matter I want to raise with the minister; and that involves the maple syrup specialist. The minister and I had some communication with respect to that matter. I think the maple syrup specialist retired this spring; and it was the intention of the ministry he wouldn’t be replaced.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: No, that’s not right.

Mr. Gaunt: That was the impression I got.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: It may have been the impression the hon. member got from some of the people who were writing letters all over the place before they really knew what the facts were; and I don’t know who prompted those letters to be written. I got, I am sure, just as many as he did. The fact of the matter is that there is a maple syrup specialist appointed to do the same job that Walter Humphries was doing; but in addition to that there will be five or six other people appointed to work with him in respect of districts.

In other words, rather than it being a one-man-show, with the person responsible trying to spread himself all over the province of Ontario, there will be one man with five assistants helping him to concentrate on that industry, because it is difficult to be in all places at once. We think the programme as it is now set up will be a stronger programme than it ever was. Having explained this to the people writing to me, I haven’t gotten any more letters. I assume they are satisfied with what we have done.

Mr. Chairman: Anything further on this?

Mr. Spence: Mr. Chairman, under this heading, I wonder if the minister is doing anything in regard to growing tomato plants?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: No.

Mr. Spence: They have to bring them in from Florida?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: That’s right. They bring them in from Georgia, Tennessee and the central Mississippi Valley States.

They get them started there much ahead of ours because they can do it outside. I don’t think there is any possibility of us ever replacing them, because they are advanced to a stage by the time our weather is ready that they just move them in and they take right off.

Mr. Chairman: Item 2 carried. Anything on item no. 3, quality control of agricultural products? Do you wish to break it into three parts?

Mr. Gaunt: That’s the farm products inspection?

Mr. Chairman: Farm products inspection to begin with?

Mr. Gaunt: Under the Farm Products Grades and Sales Act, Mr. Chairman, the minister has a number of inspectors who operate across the province to patrol the situation in the fresh fruit and vegetable areas. I am wondering insofar as uniform grade standards across the province are concerned, were there any violations in this regard during the past year; and if so how many?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I understand there were over 2,000 detentions issued and 68 violations. That reflects 10,000 visits at producers’ operations, 26,000 visits of wholesalers, 20,000 visits of packers and shippers, 10,000 visits to retailers, 2,100 visits to farmers’ markets, 2,500 visits to roadside stands; and 8,638 trucks went through the one remaining highway inspection station that we had operating at that time, that’s at Fruitland. I thought it was supposed to be closed but it’s still open just for inspection purposes.

Mr. Gaunt: What is it for -- for inspection purposes?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: It’ll be for inspection purposes, as I understand it.

Mr. Chairman: Anything further on farm products inspection?

Mr. Gaunt: How many inspectors do you have on this?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: We have 48 permanent, and we take on some temporaries. There are approximately 200 on a seasonal basis.

Mr. Gaunt: Do these inspectors deal with all of the areas under the farm products inspection branch?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: No. These are just fruits and vegetables under the Farm Products Grades and Sales Act. That doesn’t include the inspectors under the dairies branch or meat inspection.

Mr. Chairman: Anything further on the farm inspection?

Mr. Gaunt: Or the Abandoned Orchards Act? Do you have separate people to do that too?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes. The Abandoned Orchards Act comes under this group here, under the Farm Products Grades and Sales Act and fruits and vegetables.

Mr. Chairman: Anything further on farm products inspection? Dairy milk industry then.

Mr. Gaunt: No. Mr. Chairman, in respect to the inspection of honey, I don’t very often get any complaints about honey, but I did receive a complaint about quality of honey last fall, I believe. I am wondering what actions you initiate insofar as inspecting the quality of the operation and the facilities and so on in regard to honey production?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I am advised that, as far as the quality of honey at the retail level is concerned, it is inspected at the same time that our inspectors are in the stores doing fruits and vegetables, since it’s under the same group. It’s possible there could be some complaints on honey. I am sure not every bit of honey that is sold in Ontario meets every standard it should meet all the time, and it is possible that something could be wrong.

Granulation is a problem. I don’t pretend to know anything about it, but if there are any problems, if my hon. friend would give us the information we would be glad to follow up on it.

Mr. Chairman: Anything further on this item?

Mr. Gaunt: I have an item on milk industry inspection.

Mr. Chairman: Do you wish to raise it now?

Mr. Gaunt: It won’t take long, Mr. Chairman. I had a situation in my riding where the inspectors came in from the medical officer of health to inspect the dairies in the town of Wingham. The situation didn’t meet with their approval. There were a number of things wrong, and in two or possibly three days the dairy got a letter saying unless they cleaned up the situation in a matter of days they would be writing in to the ministry to ask for cancellation of their licence.

That seemed to me to be a rather hasty approach on the part of the medical officer of health. I was relieved to find that as far as your ministry was concerned it took a much more common sense approach to it and said: “Now look, these are the problems. We want you to rectify them and we will be back in two weeks.”

That seems to me to be a much more logical approach, and much more sensible than coming in and saying: “Look, you have to do these things. We will give a few days to do it, and if you don’t do it we are going to close you up.”

I am just wondering what sort of standardization procedures the minister has adopted to these matters, because I will tell you the person concerned has a great deal of money involved. The operation isn’t the most grandiose, but at least it is a reasonably good operation. I don’t think they should be subjected to this sort of harassment.

I know the minister can’t control all the medical officers of health in the province. I am not suggesting he do that. But I am wondering what material is sent out to these medical officers of health so that some form of standard approach can be adopted, so that in one area you don’t have a medical officer of health pounding the table and laying down the law because there is a little hole in the screen door. I just wonder what is being done.

In other areas apparently they are not quite so vigorous in their approach, but I think the minister should give some consideration to suggesting that some uniform procedure for these inspections be laid down.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I quite appreciate what my hon. friend has said. I would like to think we apply common sense in the inspection programme of our ministry.

Mr. Gaunt: Well, your people did; your people do.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes, we do; and I appreciate what you said in that regard. I am delighted to hear you say that.

With regard to the inspections of dairies at the public health level, we have embarked on some negotiations with the Ministry of Health through the senior staff level to try to work out an arrangement whereby we conduct those inspections of the plants rather than the medical officers of health.

It seems to me that if we are dealing with the commodity in many other respects, it would be quite logical to deal with it at that level as well; and I think it would avoid some duplication caused by various inspectors going in, putting various interpretations on it. To me it would bring more uniformity and consistency in the type of inspection provided. We hope to get that resolved.

Mr. Chairman: Will there be further discussion on this?

Mr. Gaunt: Yes, there will.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Do you want to finish?

Mr. Chairman: It depends upon how much more.

Mr. Gaunt: I have one brief comment to make about the milk industry and then I have some comments on veterinary services. If you want me just to wind up the milk industry one I can do that.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Whatever you like.

Mr. Chairman: It is after the hour we normally rise.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves the committee rise and report progress and ask for leave to sit again.

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of supply begs to report progress and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, on Monday we will return to consideration of these estimates, to be followed by the Treasurer and otherwise, as announced last evening.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves the adjournment of the House.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 1:05 o’clock, p.m.