The House resumed at 8 o’clock p.m.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE (CONTINUED)

Mr. Chairman: When we rose at 6 o’clock we were discussing the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. Are there any further comments from the critic of the New Democratic Party, the hon. member for York South?

The hon. member for Eglinton.

Ms. L. M. Reilly (Eglinton): Before the hon. member for York South begins, I wonder if you, and other members of this Legislature, would like to join with me in welcoming to this chamber, the officers and members from the Eglinton provincial association PCs.

Mr. Chairman: And now, the hon. member for York South.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr. Chairman, I had dealt at some length with what I think is the cornerstone of any long-term agriculture policy.

Mr. L. C. Henderson (Lambton): Aren’t you going to welcome the group up there, Donald?

Mr. MacDonald: I pounded my desk as my share of the welcoming of the group.

Mr. Henderson: Oh.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member has the floor.

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): More enthusiasm.

Mr. Reilly: The hon. member does welcome them.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The hon. member will continue his debate on the estimates.

Mr. MacDonald: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

As I say, I had dealt at some length on what I think is the cornerstone of any long-term agricultural policy, namely income protection, and had pleaded with the minister that the time has come to cease delaying in the hope that Ottawa will provide a platform on which you can build another little bit to meet the income needs of Ontario agriculture. Also that you should follow the lead of what has been done in BC, and what I think is going to be done in the Province of Quebec, so that we will have three provinces moving in a fashion that will leave the Ottawa government with no alternative but to come up with a much more meaningful programme than they have had up to this point.

I’d like to touch on two other basic elements in a long-term agricultural policy. One is an obligation that I suggest this government has to accept in terms of price review. It has many ramifications as far as agriculture is concerned, but perhaps one of the major ones is some sort of price review mechanism to cope with the exaggerated and inflated input costs.

In western Canada a year or two ago the four Premiers, including a Conservative Premier from Alberta, met and agreed that on two of the major inputs in agriculture, namely fertilizer and farm machinery, some kind of an approach should be made to seek justifications of costs. If they can get that justification, presumably they will follow with some legislative action to protect the interests of farmers.

That kind of thing, I think, can and should be done in the Province of Ontario. It would be something more than the lip service paid by the government, and the minister on behalf of the government, at a fertilizer conference held in the Four Seasons Hotel a year ago this spring -- or was it two years ago? -- in which failure on the part of the government to do anything beyond lip service was rather severely criticized by leading farmers within the Ontario delegations.

However, I don’t restrict the need for price review to input cost alone. One of the major aspects of the New Democratic programme for years has been the need for a price review mechanism that doesn’t necessarily have to apply across the board with every product, but at least would be there to be used when there appears to be flagrant gouging of the public and the consumers, and therefore provide a check which will perhaps eliminate some of the gouging that does go on. The failure of governments to do anything very effective on this level is one of the major causes for the kind of inflationary spiral that we have gotten into in this country.

If governments are going to stand idly by and let prices be increased when there is no justification for them, then you leave the wage earners and the salary earners in the country with no alternative but to seek increases which at least are going to keep them up to the cost of living. This process has gone for so long that they have developed a capacity to seek wage increases that sometimes match the cost of living -- and, indeed, sometimes even exceed the cost of living -- and have, in their own turn, contributed further to the wage spiral. In short, governments can’t ask people to exercise restraint when governments aren’t willing to exercise the power which is entrusted them as the elected representatives of the people to protect the general welfare, through whatever mechanism is deemed to be the most effective in checking unnecessary price increases.

The third area is the whole question of land use. I will give the minister credit that he has been doing a lot of talking about this, but I wish I had a little more evidence that within the framework of the government itself he had succeeded in persuading his colleagues in the cabinet that prime agricultural land in this province must be protected for the production of food.

Lip service is paid to this. The minister does it quite frequently. What we are constantly reminded of by farm organizations is that, for example, some 26 acres of prime farmland in this province has been passing out of production every hour of the day, every day of the year, for some years; that some 25 per cent of prime farmland in the Province of Ontario has passed out of production into the hands of developers or has been asphalted over since 1966. This is a process which undoubtedly is contributing in perhaps the major way to the fact that agriculture in Ontario is becoming relatively a smaller industry within the national framework of farming.

I was interested, for example, to note that the provincial Treasurer (Mr. McKeough), is quoted in the Financial Times on Feb. 14. This is attributed to him: “Growing cities are essential to the province’s economic health. The problem of loss of farmland will have to be solved without provincial help.”

What does that mean, when one of the major spokesman and one of the major figures in the cabinet makes a comment which, in effect, sloughs off the whole responsibility of protecting prime agricultural land? What do the Minister of Agriculture and Food’s (Mr. Stewart) comments mean when they are placed against that kind of pronouncement from a key cabinet minister?

As one looks across the Province of Ontario, one notes for example that in North Pickering you have 17,000 acres that are going to be gobbled up in the town site; 8,000 acres in the green belt; 18,000 acres in the airport. In Townsend you have got 10,000 acres, all class 2 land; in South Cayuga you have got another 10,000 acres; in Spencerville, another 10,000 acres. Hydro is constantly moving, for its various projects and its lines, into the pre-empting of prime farmland. In fact, it is interesting to note in the Solandt commission report that in selecting their preferred routes the consultants gave high but not absolute priority to avoiding good agricultural land. The route recommended by the commission does the same.

In short, there is not yet evidence of a commitment on the part of the government which would match the fine and noble professions and objectives that the Minister of Agriculture and Food is so often pronouncing across the Province of Ontario.

I suggest, in some fashion or another, within the cabinet structure, there has to be a review of this. Obviously, the person who has the obligation to seek that review and to get a firmer commitment is the Minister of Agriculture and Food himself.

I want to move from what I described as cornerstones of a long-term agricultural policy, instead of the piecemeal approach which has characterized the government’s policy down through the years, to a couple of overall considerations.

The first one, Mr. Chairman, is that I think this minister has got to recognize that he took the initiative not too many years ago, either on his own or under pressure from the government -- and I often wonder which -- to broaden the scope of this ministry from that of Agriculture to Agriculture and Food. I wonder, really, what the addition of the “and food” means.

I had hoped that when that happened the government was recognizing that it has a responsibility of reconciling what I would describe as the assurance of adequate farm income with reasonable consumer prices. And, in some fashion or another, this minister would be seeking the comprises, would be seeking ways and means of eliminating those middlemen costs so that he would have adequate incomes to the producer, without at the same time producing unreasonable prices for the consumer.

But if I may hark back to something that we dealt with at considerable length last year, the contrast between this minister’s pronouncement on behalf of the agricultural producer and the pronouncement of the then Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Clement), when he was posing as a champion of the consumers, one would have wondered if they were in the same cabinet. Certainly they weren’t on the same wavelength.

If this kind of thing is going to be reconciled, it seems to me that it has to be reconciled by the minister who is most responsible taking the initiative. Again, I think the time has come for some real evidence, rather than periodic lip service to this very necessary objective.

For example, some time ago -- and indeed it went on for years before most of the public was even aware of it -- the Minister of Agriculture and Food began a continuing study in certain of the food outlets and supermarkets of the prices related to the so-called food basket. That’s a very commendable first step. You find out what the facts are and then you use that as a basis for a public education programme. It tries to get people to recognize, to a considerable extent, the protection of themselves as consumers which can be achieved by their own action, by more careful purchasing and things of that nature.

The food basket in the Province of Ontario is really not something that anybody is conscious of. At the peak of food price costs a year or so ago it got periodic mention when there was an increase -- perhaps even a more emphatic mention if there happened to be a brief decrease in the odd survey that was taken. But it seems to me that the information that is obtained should be provided on a much more open basis.

For example, there is an unwillingness on the part of those who do the surveying for the food basket pricing to indicate where exactly they’re making their surveys. Presumably this is going to be unfair if you indicate that it was in certain stores. That kind of close-to-the-vest operation, it seems to me, is not bringing the public into your confidence in providing them with the information in the full way so that it might ultimately have the impact of checking unnecessary increases and of educating the public.

I’d be the last person to heap very much praise on the efforts of Mrs. Plumptre and her cohorts in Ottawa. But at least they have moved into the supermarket field. They have done surveys and they’ve revealed the results of those surveys; and they’ve had some rather interesting consequences in terms of what happened in the pricing procedures within those supermarkets.

This minister, above everybody else, Mr. Chairman, should know -- as a result of the study that I repeated and quoted so often in this House, a research study in connection with the minister’s own income study “The Challenge of Abundance,” which came out in 1969 or 1970 -- that the supermarket procedures in pricing have nothing to do with the normal law of supply and demand.

It’s a manipulated market. It’s advertising which is designed to attract the consumer into a market on perhaps some loss leader, and then to more than make up for that loss by exorbitantly high prices. Instead of the advertising being informative in terms of giving some real information to the people, the pricing structures and the pricing manipulation constantly change so that, as the study pointed out, the people would be deliberately fooled and prevented from getting a clear picture of what exactly was happening.

It’s a calculated effort at keeping the picture so confused that people don’t know what is happening and can’t make fair and adequate comparisons from day to day or from week to week and therefore become more educated and more skilled in purchasing. Those are the practices, and you have the documentation of it in your own studies gathering dust.

What is the government willing to do by way of action in this field? We have had no indication of it up until now, and the need for it has been re-emphasized as late as a week or so ago.

In Ottawa the Plumptre efforts took a new step forward by a proposal to the supermarkets that they should advertise their lowest price units every week for some 83 staple food items listed in the board’s recently published nutritional food guide. The reaction of the supermarkets to this was one of dismissing it as an unfair intervention into the normal operations of the marketplace, as being boring and as being the kind of thing the consumer wouldn’t be interested in.

I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that if you were to provide to the consumers, in a regular fashion from week to week or from advertising day to advertising day, the details on these 83 basic items, then consumers could gradually develop a body of knowledge that would make them much more effective purchasers in the supermarkets. That’s precisely the kind of thing which the supermarkets have steadfastly opposed.

In this whole field of playing the role as a provincial government, this government has for practical purposes copped out. If it isn’t too offensive a suggestion, I would say here is another area in which this government could take a lead from one of the NDP governments in western Canada; namely, in this instance, Manitoba, where for the last two or three years they have made detailed surveys of what farmers get at the farm gate, and weekly they have made them available to the public, so that the public can see what the spread is between what the farmers get at the farm gate and what the consumer has to pay at the counter in the supermarket. That is the process of public education; that is the process of bringing the public into your confidence and of assisting them to become somewhat more astute marketers in the purchase of food.

The second area for overview, and the final point that I wanted to raise in this leadoff in the agricultural estimates, is something in which I would concede the government appears to be moving in the right direction, and that is recognizing the obligations of Canada as a whole and the Province of Ontario as a major component of this nation towards the Third World and its need for food at a time when, as we are so constantly reminded, two-thirds of the human family are going to bed hungry every night. To emphasize it, we are getting renewed evidence of literally millions of people dying of starvation or suffering from malnutrition.

Within recent weeks we have had this government moving in the appointment of the previous deputy minister, Dick Hilliard, as a person who is going to move out into the Third World, where presumably food from Ontario has gone, to see whether it is being used in the best way to meet the needs of the people to whom it is being sent.

If I may inject just a brief aside, Mr. Chairman, I would commend the government on this, and wonder why in many other instances they haven’t been willing to move into an area which one could argue with some justification is more of a federal responsibility.

Mr. J. A. Taylor (Prince Edward-Lennox): I was chided not long ago by your same party for that.

Mr. MacDonald: For what? For that appointment of Dick Hilliard?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Yes. I sat here and members of your party chided me.

Mr. MacDonald: I happen to have been away from the House for the last two or three weeks and that may have happened. If it did let me say that I don’t agree with it. But I doubt whether it has happened, because what I’m about to say now is in keeping with the whole policy of the leader of my party.

Mr. Chairman: I wonder if the hon. member would ignore the interjections and continue with the debate on the estimates please.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your interjections very much, except that if you could be more effective in keeping him quiet then I wouldn’t have the problem.

Mr. Chairman: The Chair will attempt to do that.

Mr. MacDonald: You will attempt to do that? Perhaps it is because you can’t see him; I’m blocking your view.

Mr. Kennedy: Sit down then; sit down and you won’t block the view.

Mr. MacDonald: Is that right? I shall do that relatively shortly.

Mr. Kennedy: You are not bad looking yourself.

Mr. MacDonald: I would appreciate an explanation from the minister, just for my own information, as to what he envisages as the role of Mr. Hilliard, and whether or not he is separating out any contribution that Ontario per se is making to the needs of the Third World; or whether by agreement with Ottawa Mr. Hilliard is going to be doing some sort of a review and survey about the use of Canadian food aid programmes from whatever province the food may come.

I would hope that kind of broader approach is what is being done. Quite frankly I don’t know how, if you go into any given country, you can examine the use of a product that comes from Ontario, when within that same country there may be products that have come from two or three or half a dozen of the other Canadian provinces.

But it seems to me that if we were to recognize the needs of the world and assure ourselves that the provision of food aid programmes was being applied in the best possible way, then you have cleared some of the deck for seeking all-out production within this province, instead of being obsessed with the bogey of surpluses.

One of the tragedies of recent years, indeed of the last generation or two, is that in a country that has a capacity to produce food to the extent that Canada and the Province of Ontario have, we are constantly plagued with this bogey of surplus, when it really isn’t a surplus. The problem is one of distribution to the people who have such a desperate need elsewhere in the world.

I rapidly concede that if you are going to effectively achieve that distribution you’ve got to cope with the financial problem. At this time, there is some renewed examination of what used to be described in the immediate postwar years as the need for developing a world food bank. You would be able to store the surpluses in years of bounty and have them available in the years of scarcity that may come as the result of crop failures or famine or whatever you may have in these various disasters across the world.

It seems to me that Ontario can play a more vigorous role in this. Perhaps the appointment of Dick Hilliard is a way of moving toward a more vigorous role, policy-wise, on our own and/or in conjunction with the federal government.

I’ve been rather interested at the number of letters which I have gotten in recent weeks from constituents and indeed from people beyond my own constituency, seeking my support for the proposition that was put to the cabinet recently on behalf of a dollar-for-dollar approach to voluntary food aid or assistance to the Third World. My reply to these people has been -- and that’s why I reacted to the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox with some confidence -- that the New Democratic Party has for years been urging this as an obligation of a country like ours.

Indeed we have urged that if a small proportion of the money we’ve been spending on defence programmes, that usually resulted in the accumulation of military hardware which became obsolete in three or four years, if some small proportion of that expenditure were devoted to providing food for the nations of the world, we might well be laying the foundations for a more effective peace than has been the case in the past. That, I think, is one way in which we can nationally finance these programmes. But I also think that a province has an obligation in this field too. It is an obligation that should be worked out cooperatively with the federal government.

We are saying to our farmers: “Cut back on your production”; and “Let’s be very careful in case we produce a surplus that wrecks our market.” Instead, we should be developing the mechanisms for world food banks and the mechanisms for the necessary capital to finance these world food banks.

If it means the dollar-for-dollar matching is going to involve the provincial government, fine, let it be so. Because in the final result what you are doing is matching dollar for dollar to provide the underwriting of the production of food by Ontario farmers, and the dollars will never leave this country. So you are maintaining staple food production in face of the world’s needs, and at the same time you are maintaining a more viable agricultural industry. It seems to me that you can, on that economic side, quite apart from the humanitarian aspects of the programme, accept and implement the dollar for dollar.

In conjunction with that, there is one related point I would like to make. I have a feeling that the Ministry of Agriculture and Food can play a more vigorous role on its own, or more likely in conjunction with the Ministry of Tourism and Industry, organizing trade missions to really develop markets in the world to a greater extent than has been the case in the past.

I was struck in recent weeks with what I was able to see myself in eastern Europe. Our capacities for marketing agricultural products are relatively limited, I think, except in the emergency purchases of wheat, for example by the USSR. However, if you get down into the Middle East, they are -- to lapse into the vernacular -- lousy with money these days. They have billions of dollars of reserves, but they are nations with a limited capacity for the production of food, and that on a very antiquated basis. On the other hand, we have the technology, we have livestock, indeed we have foodstuffs that could be immediately used. As well as developing our capacities to produce food, I think there are immediate markets that have to be pursued with a great deal of vigour.

I think it should be conceded, to be fair, that those markets are a relatively new market, and therefore all the more reason why we should place somewhat more emphasis there than has been the case in recent years.

That is to say nothing, of course, of the whole rather tragic and exasperating problem of how you develop a food-producing capacity among the Third World nations and the heavily-populated nations whose problems were so sharply focused in the UN-sponsored food conference in Rome a few months ago. One of the things that emerged rather clearly from that conference was that food becomes such a political tool in world politics today and in power politics, that it is difficult to keep a focus on the humanitarian need.

As was pointed out editorially in commenting on that conference, the ultimate answer has got to be in developing a capacity on the part of these countries to produce most of their own food, certainly more than they are doing at the present time. One must recognize that in many of these countries they are operating in the agricultural industry on the basis of procedures that are literally a thousand years old and that the real contribution that can be made by Canada is to provide the technology, to provide the training, to provide the feed stocks, to provide the cattle breeds and all of the various things which are the basis for industry.

Now this may mean that in the dollar-for-dollar matching some of the moneys that would come from the provincial government would go into this kind of assistance, hopefully co-ordinated with whatever can be done by other provinces and by the Canadian nation as a whole.

People who take a look at what is happening across the world are profoundly disturbed, but then they sort of shrug it off with a sense of desperation: “What can we do about it?” Here is an avenue where we can do something about it, and much of it can centre on this ministry. Because, surely, if were thinking of the world food needs and how we can contribute to maximizing them, it is the Minister of Agriculture and Food who should be playing a major role.

That, I think Mr. Chairman, is all I would like to say by way of leadoff in these estimates. There are many other points that can be dealt with in detail at a later stage.

Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. minister wish to respond at this point? The hon. Minister of Agriculture and Food.

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity to make some response to the comments that were made by my friends the member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Gaunt) and the member for York South, whom we welcome back to the House. It didn’t seem like the agriculture estimates at all without him here and I’m delighted to see him back. I know we’ll have some real wingdingers before these estimates are through, if custom runs according to form, but I’m sure that in the end he will agree that what we have done and are continuing to do in the Ministry of Agriculture and Food is in the best possible interests of the farm people of Ontario. I know he can reach no other conclusion than that, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MacDonald: I’ve already stated the alternative conclusions.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I agree that you have, but it is so far off base and there are so many points left out of it, and it seems to be so pat and so easy to achieve, that it’s just full of holes to start with, and I shall point some of them out as time goes on, Mr. Chairman, with your permission.

My hon. friend from Huron-Bruce quoted at some length from the OFA figures, and I realize that it was very short notice he was given to prepare that speech the other day, and I really don’t know what he would have done had he not had the OFA brief to the Ontario cabinet.

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): I would have made out.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I almost read, word for word, from what he said in those figures --

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): You just make sure that you read it.

Mr. Gaunt: I would have made out.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I’m sure he would. But he wouldn’t have had access to those figures. I noticed that the unfortunate part of it was he fell into the same trap the OFA did. He made no reference, Mr. Chairman -- and I’m sure this was not intentional on his part; I know he wouldn’t have done this had he thought -- to the enormous increase in corn production in this province of ours. There are people in this House who would suggest that corn production has increased greatly. Now there are times within these four walls when that may be the case, but I’m talking about corn production throughout the great rural area of Ontario.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): I thought you were talking about the corn production of this House.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: That’s what I was referring to, my friend.

Mr. Gaunt: It’s available here.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: There have been times when I have had to listen to a lot of it here, but I’m not talking of that kind of corn now, I’m talking about the enormous increase that we have generated in the last, say, 10 or 15 years. It’s absolutely phenomenal.

No reference was made to that. No reference was made in the OFA brief or by my friend from Huron-Bruce to the increase in barley acreage and barley tonnage that we have in this province today. No reference was made to the enormous increase in soy beans, Mr. Chairman, or to the increase in white beans. Those are cash crops that, considering the area from which my hon. friend comes, he should be fully aware have increased enormously.

Mr. Stokes: Funny the federation didn’t realize that.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Of course they realized it. They specifically did not refer to those things because they were building a case to bring in their programme; no question of it at all. When we asked them these things in cabinet they readily admitted that was why they did it.

Let me say this, my hon. friend suggests in some of the references that were made there that we should have been greater in beef sales. I don’t know how we can see the wisdom in increasing beef production in the Province of Ontario, as it was suggested we should be doing, because the inference was there that because our per capita production of beef was suffering compared to the Province of Alberta. One should understand that we have enormously more beef produced in the Province of Ontario today than we did, say, even six or seven years ago. We have an estimated beef cow population in this province today which has increased to about 170,000 to 200,000 beef cows more than we had 10 years ago, by actual figures.

There was no reference made to that, but there was some reference made to the fact that there was more beef per capita being produced in Alberta than there was in Ontario. That may well be the case, but I point out to my. hon. friend that the Province of Alberta has induced packing companies to locate there. They have provided out-of-pocket grants and very attractive loans to the producers of Alberta, the feedlot operators, to generate beef production in that province, so that the beef can be produced, processed and marketed from that province as the finished article and not shipped down here, as was previously the case, as feeder cattle which were fed in this province.

That’s why we have suggested across this province that there should be an increase in the beef cow herd in this province. Sooner or later, it was abundantly clear to us, the supply of feeder cattle from western Canada would simply not be here as time went on because of their proximity, not only to the western feedlots being developed but to the United States feedlots being developed.

No one could possibly have foreseen the culmination in one apex of the cattle population and the enormous price increase that occurred for feed grains in this country, brought about by the world grain condition productions of 1972 and early 1973. They just happened to mesh together and the cattle feeders simply had to back off. There was no possible way they could feed grain as they had in the past. Right today, there is 39 per cent less cattle on feed in the United States than a year ago and about 60 per cent less cattle being pushed through the feedlots than there were a year ago.

Those are the kinds of things that have generated the incredible problem that happened to the beef cow and the feeder cattle producer in this country. No reference was made to those kinds of things. I’m not blaming anybody for that happening; it simply was a fact of life.

Today, we see what’s happening to beef prices. There has been an enormous increase over the last 10 days or two weeks. How long that will last nobody knows, but it’s a clear reflection of the fact that the supply of fed cattle is considerably less today than it was a few weeks ago. We’ve caught up to the supply of fed cattle in a large way and the prices at the auction sales and livestock markets are certainly reflecting it.

Reference was made to comparisons between Ontario per capita sales and grain sales in Saskatchewan. Of course that would happen; no question about it. The OFA used those figures wisely, of course, to advance its position, and so did my friend from Huron-Bruce. Really, the enormous surpluses of grain which had built up over the years in the west were suddenly gone. The granaries were simply emptied; the elevators were cleared out, the grain piles disappeared off the face of the bald prairie because of the demand for gain from off-shore sources which emanated from the disastrous grain production of 1972 and 1973 on a worldwide basis.

When you take those figures into consideration, of course there is a difference, there’s no question about it; but I think one has to recognize the facts behind the issues.

We talked about the Ontario farm income protection plan and my friend from Huron-Bruce talked about the farmer requiring the necessity to get back at least the cost of production. He referred to the British Columbia plan and he supported the OFA proposal, which really is the same thing as the BC plan. My friend from York South used that as the cornerstone of his argument tonight and I want to deal with that.

A reference was made to the fact that I didn’t deal with this subject the other night; quite admittedly I didn’t deal with it. I wanted to hear what you folk had to say, quite frankly, no question about it whatever; and I also wanted to --

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: My friend from Waterloo North makes a joke of this. I tell you quite frankly, we are negotiating with our friends in Ottawa on a day-to-day basis and we are hopeful that a solution may be found to a very complex problem. That’s one of the reasons I didn’t talk about it the other night, because I had hoped the thing would have been resolved by now, but it’s not.

Mr. Good: You wouldn’t stick your neck out until you heard what we had to say.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Of course, I wanted to hear what you had to say because, quite frankly, I’ve never heard you make a suggestion yet that was worth listening to and I didn’t gain a thing the other day. We know exactly where you stand.

Mr. Good: That is the speech.

Mr. MacDonald: If you knew we wouldn’t have any --

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Now then, let me say this, Mr. Chairman, that my friends talk about the BC plan --

Mr. Good: You had to hear what we had to say.

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): Who wrote that propaganda?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: -- and they talk with great enthusiasm. I was thrilled to hear my friend from York South talking so eloquently about the BC minister, talking about how wonderfully well he pleases the farmers of British Columbia. Well there was a little newsletter that reached my desk recently. It’s dated April 21, 1975, and it says:

“REGION 8 INVADES VICTORIA

“Approximately 150 National Farmers Union members from region 8 descended on the BC provincial cabinet in Victoria on April 21 to lend support for permissive legislation for NFU collective bargaining programmes and lobby MLAs. The BC government was accused of having done an about face on commitments made last summer at the region’s annual meeting by Agriculture Minister David Stupich. The NDP had also, at its party convention a year ago, accepted by resolution the right of farmers to collective bargaining, but enacted no law permitting it.”

Mr. Chairman, so much for BC and that marvellous NDP government which they would like to think exists out in that great Province of British Columbia.

Mr. MacDonald: That is pretty low, if that came --

Hon. Mr. Stewart: That may be pretty low, but that’s what I read out of this right now --

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: -- and you know my friend talks about them, tells us all about it.

Mr. MacDonald: You go around condemning the farmers union --

Hon. Mr. Stewart: No, no; I never condemn them at all. I simply quote from --

Mr. MacDonald: You are like the Roman Emperor -- divide and rule.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I quote from my hon. friend, who I am surprised doesn’t have the farmers union in the gallery supplying him with information tonight as they usually are.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: So no, Mr. Chairman, let’s get back to this business of my friend from York South saying there is no long-term policy for agriculture, that it’s piecemeal, ad hoc programmes we introduce in this province.

I just want to ask my hon. friend, what is a long-term policy for agriculture? Let my hon. friend stand in this chamber or in any platform of this province and define what is a long-term policy for agriculture. You have programme after programme that has been enunciated by government after government that is suggesting it be a long-term programme for agriculture, and in the fullness of time every one of those programmes has come to nought, because there is no possible way that you can define a long-term programme for agriculture that will be always, forever and a day the appropriate programme for that. There is no way.

Mr. MacDonald: The basis of it is an income protection, which we argued.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. MacDonald: You sloughed it off and had to be pushed into it.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: No way can you do that. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that when my hon. friend talks about this stabilization programme for farmers, I said today and I thought last year -- I don’t know whether I said it last year, and I haven’t searched Hansard, but I am sure I must have thought of it but didn’t say it, and I am surprised I didn’t think of it or say it if I did think of it, but I want to say it now --

Mr. Good: You didn’t want to say it until we said it.

Mr. Kennedy: We would wait a long time for you to say it.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: My hon. friend must surely have read the proposal that the Ministers of Agriculture made to the federal Minister of Agriculture in December of 1973, and that came about as a result of the meeting that was called in Ottawa in September of 1973, when the Prime Minister of Canada asked us to come there --

Mr. MacDonald: What did you propose?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: -- and said we want to have more food produced in Canada. Our request to him was that if you really want that, then there is only one thing to do and that is to put in an agricultural product stabilization programme --

Mr. MacDonald: Right.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: -- that will leave the farmer in the position that when he produces the food you want he is not going to be left holding the bag as he has done in the past.

Mr. MacDonald: You talked and did nothing about it, while in BC they put it into effect, and that’s the point I’m making.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Ah yes, my hon. friend talks about BC.

Mr. MacDonald: You talk while BC acts. It’s procrastination.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Ah sure, all right. I’ll come to that. I listened to your harangue a few minutes ago.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. MacDonald: It wasn’t a harangue.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: If my hon. friend would just keep quiet long enough to give me a chance to enunciate our position, I think he’d see the wisdom of what we decided to do.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): No order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Stokes: Sock it to him.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Now then, we went ahead and proposed that that Agricultural Product Stabilization Act of the federal government be amended. We suggested 90 per cent of a three-year average, but we said there had to be a cost factor added which would take care of the rapid initiation which was taking place in cost inputs over and above the period of the averaging of the price.

Mr. MacDonald: Are they going to do that?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: And they have brought in an Act which provides 90 per cent of a five-year average, and they suggest that there be an add-in cost factor.

Mr. MacDonald: Have you figured out the formula?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Now we have met with our friends in Ottawa, on at least one occasion, when we were to have discussed the situation as far as the Agricultural Product Stabilization Act was concerned. That day there were two items on the agenda: one was GEMA egg marketing; the other one was Agricultural Products Stabilization Act amendments.

We took most of the day to discuss eggs. But my friend, whom the member for York South wants to talk about, the Minister of Agriculture for British Columbia, came to the point in the late afternoon when he had to rush out to catch a plane to get back to BC. He pleaded with us to come back to Ottawa to discuss with the federal government a means whereby British Columbia could be saved from the situation in which they found themselves, because they simply could not afford and cannot afford the programme they have now in place. That’s the truth, right there.

Mr. MacDonald: Nuts. They can and will go ahead on their own.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Right. Sure, they will go ahead on their own, because they are pleading with Ottawa to get them off the hook. And they are pleading with the rest of us not to get involved in that kind of a programme. Now there’s the other side of the coin that my friend has not talked about today.

Mr. MacDonald: In other words, you are going to do nothing for the farmers of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: There is the other thing, Mr. Chairman, that my friend refused to talk about. When he talks about British Columbia agriculture, he fails to mention that the total receipts of British Columbia agriculture is $402 million, just about one-sixth of the agricultural production of the Province of Ontario.

They can, of course, do certain things without production controls. But when you talk about the magnificence of the BC plan, you fail to mention one single thing about production controls or supply management; not a thing.

I will tell you this, that in the programme in British Columbia and in the programme presented by the OFA, on their own admission they say there is no way that programme can work in the Province of Ontario or in the Province of Quebec unless there is vigorous production control or supply management is applied.

Mr. MacDonald: They are in BC.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Oh sure; they are in BC, on eggs and on milk and a few other things.

Mr. MacDonald: Oh no, no; the farmer can’t increase production by more than 10 per cent, and receive income protection.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes, that’s very true, but look at their total production. They have got the mountains, they have got everything else to protect them.

Mr. MacDonald: Okay, but it works in principle.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Look at it here; there is no way. Now how are you going to apply production controls in Ontario within one provincial board? I asked this question of the OFA, because I am a charter member of the OFA. I support the OFA financially and in many other ways.

Mr. MacDonald: You are a charter member of the United Church, but you are bucking them.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: You bet I am. Now I will tell you another thing, Mr. Chairman --

Mr. MacDonald: And you turned their booking down --

Hon. Mr. Stewart: -- that as far as I am concerned, there has to be some type of supply management. My hon. friend talks about this as a great programme. But he doesn’t say, Mr. Chairman, that he is going to have to apply vigorous production controls across this province.

Let him stand on his political podium that he adopted this afternoon and tell the farmers of Ontario that if you are going to have the kind of price stabilization programme he promotes, you are going to have the application of severe production controls -- because there is no other alternative for it.

Now, in the meeting that we had with the federal minister we recognized, Mr. Chairman, that in the new Act there is a section that causes all of us -- certainly in our province and I assume in the other provinces as well -- to have great concern. It is this clause in the federal Act.

“Where provinces and producers who desire a greater prescribed price for an agricultural commodity than is otherwise provided by this Act, the Governor in Council may authorize the board to enter into an agreement with those provinces or producers or provinces and producers to provide for such greater prescribed price.”

Now, that’s top-loaded, plain and simple. We suggest, Mr. Chairman, that is a very dangerous precedent to adopt. We believe there has to be one uniform price right across Canada. The position we adopted in December of 1973 has not changed. A letter that I addressed to the federal Minister of Agriculture, dated, I believe, Dec. 17, 1973, if memory serves me rightly, sets out --

Mr. MacDonald: In response to pressure from the hog producers.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Not in response to pressure from the hog producers, my eye. It was pure and simple, just common sense -- which my hon. friend wouldn’t recognize -- that we suggested that that principle apply. We are concerned that this is in the Act, because here we have British Columbia with an add-on programme, the Province of Quebec thinking about an add-on programme, the Province of Saskatchewan, with hogs, in an add-on programme. And even despite their fancy price for hogs, hog production in Saskatchewan has dropped 27 per cent in the last six months, even with the fancy price they added in there at the public expense.

There was no way you can do that, because farmers, if they make up their minds they are not going to feed hogs but they can sell grain, they are going to sell grain and they are going to let the old sows go to the plant. That is what happens; it is as simple as that.

We suggest, because of the concern all of us have for that --

Mr. MacDonald: What do you do with the old sows here?

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Just a few, just a few. The farmer from York South wouldn’t recognize them.

Mr. MacDonald: Oh I do; I gaze upon them.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: When we had our meeting at Ottawa, the last meeting, the meeting that we all went back to at the request of our friend from British Columbia -- the second meeting; it was called at his request -- we made a proposal that day, because obviously there was great concern expressed around that table with this bill and its implications, as to what could happen in add-on programmes. Just as one farmer described it to me yesterday -- as a matter of fact it was the president of the Christian Farmers Federation -- he said: “You just allow add-on programmes to take place and the interprovincial trade war is on.” It’s as simple as that. There is no other way to describe it. That’s what will happen.

Now we suggest there is a way out of this and we made this proposal to the federal Minister of Agriculture and we made it to our colleagues from all across Canada. We suggested that the federal government adopt the first part of their Act -- paying 90 per cent of the five year average. We would have preferred it to be three years, but they say five years. All right, that is in the Act.

You take that as the base price right across on the named commodities; but then you add on, as a cost factor to take care of inflation, to take care of the intangibles -- the family labour, the management ability of the farm, the overhead costs of operating the farm -- a percentage of that; whatever seems fair. Add that on and then let the federal government pay one-third of that, the province pay one-third and the farmer pay one-third on a voluntary basis, sort of a protection programme, and apply that right across Canada in all the provinces.

To me that eliminates immediately the problem of add-on programmes that might be initiated by specific provinces. To me it is a simple way. It is understandable and I think that it will work. For the life of me, I don’t know why my federal colleague doesn’t grab that thing and run with it. I suggested to him that if I sat in his chair -- and I went down to see him again last week; I personally went down to talk with him -- I said: “Look, if I sat in your chair I would buy that thing so fast you wouldn’t let me out of this office without my name on the dotted line, because you immediately eliminate the problem that all of us are concerned about -- these add-on programmes that put one province in competition with another.”

There is no way the Province of Ontario can compete with the Province of British Columbia with the oil revenue they have, or the Province of Saskatchewan with the oil revenue they have got, and make it realistic. There is just no way.

Mr. MacDonald: This have-not Province of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Oh so talk about your have-not provinces. I will tell you that we are not nearly so wealthy as a lot of people would like us to think, in relation to the kind of found money they now have to play around with. The resources are tremendous.

Mr. MacDonald: How the tables have been turned.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I know there is no place I would rather live than the great Province of Ontario, and I assume my hon. friends think the same thing. A lot of that, of course, is due to good government, Mr. Chairman, with which I know you profoundly concur.

Mr. Ruston: Why don’t you stand for re-election?

Mr. MacDonald: They have survived in spite of you.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: With that little aside, Mr. Chairman, which I was provoked into saying by my friends on the opposite side, who would expect me to say those little things at times --

Mr. MacDonald: Of course we expect the minister to, but don’t blame us.

Mr. Stokes: We’ll be laughing all the way to the poorhouse.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I would just like to suggest that we should adopt the philosophy that we enunciated in Ottawa. We immediately get British Columbia out of the situation in which it finds itself. We resolve the problems as far as Saskatchewan is concerned. We resolve the problem as far as Alberta is concerned; and they feel, with us, that there should be a standard price right across Canada.

In the Province of Quebec it would help a good deal there to resolve some problems that may emanate from that province if they decide to pursue their legislation.

Frankly, I don’t think we’re very far from the Federation of Agriculture in their proposal. They suggest it be a voluntary, participatory programme; and we think there is great merit in that, Mr. Chairman. We’re willing to go along on that basis. We hope the federal government will see its way clear to adopt our suggestion.

I just think it makes so much common sense that we should go for it. But I want to say this. We have no notion whatever of asking the other provinces to withdraw some of the programmes they have on a regional basis in respect to provinces; not commodity subsidization, but the general programmes they have, and that we have in our province, to assist farmers.

We paid out $60 million in 1974 to farmers of Ontario. None of it was paid on commodity subsidization, but on assistance programmes to help farmers to help themselves. Those are the programmes I think are over and above what we’re talking about in the income stabilization programme. So, we’re not suggesting that the Maritimes, or some of our western provinces or Quebec, should abandon their position in that particular regard.

So much for the stabilization programme. We’re still working on it. We hope that we will be able to resolve it.

Reference was made to the $20 million in the budget of my friend, the Treasurer. That was simply a nominal figure put in there. We don’t know whether it’s enough or too little or too much -- or what it is. We simply put it in as a figure because --

Mr. Good: Where is it?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: -- our negotiations were going on with Ottawa at the same time as he was preparing the budget. I just simply put it in there.

Mr. MacDonald: If it was just a figure, what did you put it in there for?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Maybe we shouldn’t have set it at all, I don’t know. Maybe we shouldn’t have.

Mr. Good: Where does it fit into the plan?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Of course, if my hon. friend would like to suggest something else. It isn’t that way at all. We want to see a stabilization programme put in place for Ontario farmers, for all farmers in Canada. We’re sincere about that, we want to see it done. We believe we’re a part of Canada, Mr. Chairman.

We do not believe we should have add-on programmes in addition to the federal programme, when in discussions we have had with them the position we’ve adopted with them is there should not be programmes that will balkanize Canada. That is something we want to avoid.

It would be easy and it would be politically popular for me to stand today, all over this province, and say: We’re going to put in a stabilization programme in the Province of Ontario that will be over and above what the federal government plans.

Mr. MacDonald: That is your noble rationalization for doing nothing.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I simply do not accept that position, Mr. Chairman. I simply do not believe that is in the best interests of Canada. I want to see the best possible position adopted by the federal government, by the provinces working in harmony together for the farmers of Canada. To me, that is a defendable position. It is one that is understandable and, I hope, one that my friend the member for York South would agree with.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): It is easier to do nothing.

Mr. MacDonald: Yes, and if it is not the best thing, then do nothing. Oh I will support it, but I am not going to support it if it gives you an opportunity to do nothing.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Oh well, my hon friend talked about land use as well; he talks about 26 acres an hour being lost to agriculture. You know, that figure intrigued me too. I wondered how they arrived at it.

I phoned several economists before I got an answer. I finally got an answer from an economist, who said: “I’ll tell you the way I arrived at it. It is by taking the 1965 census of improved farmland in Ontario and then taking the 1971 census figures for improved farmland in Ontario and separating the two, then dividing the total number of hours for the five years into that figure.”

I said: “Where did the land go?” He said: “Oh I have no idea.” I said: “Is it under construction?” He said: “I have no idea.” I said: “Is it under the sterile cap of asphalt and concrete?” He said: “I have no idea.”

But you see, when you take that five-year period of 1965 to 1970, Mr. Chairman, you take the period of time in Canada’s agricultural history when we had such surpluses that we didn’t know what to do with it. There were surpluses of almost. . . the period of time in Canada’s agricultural history when we had such surpluses that we didn’t know what to do with them, there were surpluses of almost every description in this country. That was the period of time when we had so much grain built up in western Canada that because there was no way the farmers could convert that grain into cash, as there was no market for it, they embraced hog production for one item. They drove the price of hogs in this province of ours down to $19.50 a cwt.

Is it any wonder that I supported, with my colleagues from western Canada, the “Lower Inventories for Tomorrow” programme that was introduced, finally, under persuasion by the federal government, to try to put cash in the hands of those farmers in western Canada? They were going to drive the rest of us completely out of business. It was done, but in that time there was no place to sell that grain, we were paying people not to grow crop in Canada.

Mr. Laughren: Shame on you.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: When we had this Nanticoke deal, when the city of Nanticoke was founded, the land was purchased in those days. Who would then have listened to anybody say we must preserve agricultural land? I have heard more about preservation of agricultural land in the last year and a half than I have heard in the previous 12 years I sat in this chair. Finally people are interested in land because food prices went up, but they weren’t too much interested before then. When Nanticoke city was founded, that was what was happening.

Take a look at Pickering. My friend refers to the Pickering city that this province has acquired for development purposes some time in the future. In 1975 there will be 1,170 more acres in crop production in the Pickering city site than was in production before the province moved into the area. My friend says this is wasting land. The facts really don’t substantiate what he is trying to prove.

I have to ask myself, Mr. Chairman, how our friends on the other side of the House can abuse the Minister of Housing (Mr. Irvine) day after day and say build more houses. Where is he to build them? In thin air or on water? They’ve got to be built on land; there is no alternative.

This is one of the reasons we moved into the area of eastern Ontario and acquired the Edwardsburgh property in order to try to encourage industry and development to locate in areas where there would not be the same loss of high quality agricultural land.

The establishment of our foodlands development branch, Mr. Chairman is a direct attempt by our ministry, to have capability input into all decisions that are made regarding land use from whatever ministry or agency of the government they may emanate in the future.

Reference was made to international food relief. This is a subject which I think is close to the hearts of all of us. Every person with any humane instinct in him whatsoever shudders and is concerned with the plight of many less fortunate than ourselves. We don’t have to go into that subject. We know it’s a fact and a very serious fact.

We have been asked to provide a dollar-for-dollar grant from the province to the churches’ inter-faith committee and the group which is working with charitable organizations to establish this $9 million fund. It is hoped that the $9 million fund that will be raised by the churches will be matched by us and then in turn that fund will be matched by CIDA in Ottawa, which would give them a total fund of $36 million.

That’s a lot of money. It is perhaps not enough, but it is a lot of money. The question we asked when we met with these people and I think it is fair to report to the House Mr. Chairman -- is that we wondered, just as my friend from York South wonders, what is the best way to help our friends?

In my opinion, T. R. Hilliard, my former deputy, has now been given this job at the specific request of the Premier of Ontario (Mr. Davis), because he is tremendously interested in this subject and I think knowledgeable perhaps beyond anyone’s comprehension in this government. He attended the food conference in Rome last year. One of the things he told me when he came back was that the nations of the Third World, while they admittedly need help now, were saying that their food is important, yes, but it is a temporary measure. The thing they really need is professional and technological expertise. That is the thing we think we should be looking at.

We asked the committee of churches that came to meet with the cabinet about it. We had a good meeting; we talked about these various items. We wondered if just giving food aid is the best way to handle this. We asked them to go back and take another look at this, and they are working with Dick Hilliard now.

Dick Hilliard has already been to Mexico to look at the development of the green revolution there and to see what has been happening there in the development of new seeds, of new varieties of grains and of methods of helping people to help themselves. We are going to take a look at this to see how we can be of best assistance. Then we will be in a position to know where our dollars are going and how they are going to be used to the best advantage possible.

I was intrigued by my friend from York South mentioning international trade. We are tremendously interested in this. We already have had a trade mission to the Middle East. It has been a very successful mission, I think, in that it has opened doors of contact for food commodities that we hope to sell there. But more important, it has generated interest in our agricultural livestock trade. We now have money on deposit in the Province of Ontario that has been set aside for the purchase of an enormous number of livestock in this province that will be shipped directly to the Middle East countries.

I think this is good for a variety of reasons. Export markets, particularly for dairy stock, have been depressed of late months -- well, the last couple of years. I think this will open up new doors of opportunity for us to capitalize on those kinds of things. We hope that through the efforts of the Ontario Food Council, which are continuing as a follow-up to that trade mission, we will be able to vastly expand export opportunities and capitalize on some of the oil money that obviously is available for trade.

I just want to say a word about the food pricing review mechanism. I suppose it is easy to say this should be put in place, but there are no price controls in the Province of Ontario. There are no price controls in Canada that I know of, Mr. Chairman. We made that decision last July 8, if people will recall, when we decided that price controls were not for Canada --

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): Did you make that decision?

Some hon. members: Come on.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Canadians decided that. They made that decision.

Mr. MacDonald: Some of the provinces have price controls.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I find it rather interesting that our friends in the opposition who comment on that are now saying that perhaps we should have price controls and that maybe that is the thing we should be doing. I don’t know, but I do know that as far as the food basket is concerned, we have some reservations about enunciating to the stores where the food basket is calculated, and the items on which it is calculated in the stores. To my way of thinking, if that were done, you would simply advertise or telegraph to the stores ahead of time that we were coming in and they would make specials of all those various items for that particular day and we would come out with the food basket that might not be realistic as far as price is concerned.

Mr. MacDonald: Say afterwards where you have been; you don’t need to telegraph them.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I think we are doing the right thing in that particular regard. We realize we can’t be all things to all people, Mr. Chairman, but I am satisfied that as my friends in the opposition and my friends on the government benches review the estimates of our ministry, they will see, as I have seen, that we are trying to do the very best we possibly can, not only for the producers of Ontario but for the consumers of Ontario, in assuring there is going to be a continuing supply of wholesome food, abundantly produced in this great province of ours.

On vote 1701:

Mr. Chairman: Item I; the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I was listening to the opposition critics in connection with these estimates and the opening statement of the minister, I was also considering a number of letters that I have received from farmers who are members of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, which you know is pressing its members to have the provincial government adopt an income protection plan, with the role of the federation very prominent in that plan, of course. I think we’re all familiar with that. I am certainly sympathetic with the problem and the plight, in some cases, of the farmers of this province.

The more I thought about my response to the correspondence, the more I seemed to conclude that, over the years we indeed did respond to problems as they arose. I was interested in the member for York South’s comments when he talked about dealing with agricultural problems on an ad hoc basis. I had almost concluded that was to be the historical trend, yet I couldn’t really see what the alternatives were in terms of a long range programme. I might say, I was interested in the minister’s comments in talking about a farm policy and a long range programme. What would it be?

I recall in 1971, when I was first elected, the hog producers were in very desperate straits. We had problems in terms of egg production. I think the minister will recall the push for a marketing agency, and of course, again, the cutback in the number of producing hens. Since then, we’ve experienced, certainly in my riding, problems in other areas of agriculture. The industrial milk producers had it difficult for some time, and are still looking for increases. The apple growers had difficult times. It’s either weather, hail or blight, or some other problem. We had early frost last year which hurt some other cash crops, such as tomatoes.

It’s difficult to examine farming and say, “Here is a farm policy,” and make it applicable to every facet, every phase of farming. Farming really is made up of many different segments with varying difficulties, varying problems, varying markets.

Mr. G. Samis (Stormont): So is industry.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: To enunciate a policy, and to apply it across the board, and say, “Here, this is our policy for ever and ever, amen,” in terms of farming, is just not realistic.

I think that, critical to farming in general, is the problem of the farmer getting from the sale price of his farm products, a reasonable return on his labour, his investment, and all of his input costs. Let me be trite. Everybody knows that, yet the solution is very difficult. How do you ensure that a farmer can, in fact, get a fair return on his commodities? It’s not an isolated problem. It’s not a problem that relates only to Ontario or to Canada. It’s an international problem. When you think that things are going well in your particular line of endeavour, you find there are world-wide conditions that affect your particular operation.

We all know that in 1972, 1973, and 1974 there was severe drought in about 35 nations of the world. That meant, of course, a shortage of grain. At the same time as we were experiencing escalating grain prices, we were also experiencing a tremendous increase in the number of beef cattle. Here we were thinking, that, with an increase in beef prices, the market was going to be good for a number of years. Instead of that we found there was a surplus of beef, and the cost of feed was prohibitive.

The eternal question is, what do you do to keep the farmer in business? I am talking now about every phase of farming. Because if there is one thing that we must do in this nation it is to ensure that we are the growers of our own foodstuffs. I don’t think we can afford to be dependent on other nations to feed our population. We have seen what the impact has been on this and other countries in terms of oil. And if we are to be dependent on other countries for feeding our nation, then I think we are going to see sorry days. In my estimation ensuring that we keep a good healthy farm community is basic.

It is all very well to talk in general terms about income protection, and at the same time talk of a farmer being a free agent to grow as much, or as little, of any commodity as he wishes. Once government steps in to determine what a farmer is going to get, once it guarantees him the costs of his production including the return on his investment, you are going to have a very difficult time planning just how much production will take place. And that may be implicit.

As I understand the problems in British Columbia, you have to have production control if you are going to guarantee a basic farm income; the member for York South mentioned that as a part of that programme. At the same time he states that the problem is not one of supply, it is one of distribution. That phrase is an old one, and it’s one that I heard many, many years ago in this chamber as an onlooker when Joliffe was the leader of the socialist party at that time, the CCF. And I suppose there is a certain amount of truth in it when we look at the world community and the problem of distribution of foodstuffs. At the same time it is a question of who is going to bankroll the unlimited production of foodstuffs in order to feed the nations that can’t produce their own food.

To a great extent, this is a problem of technology. For example, in Canada we can produce twice as much wheat per acre as they can in India. Spain, interestingly enough, can produce four times as much rice on an acre of land as they produce in India, or the Philippines for that matter, or Burma. When we are talking in terms of international food production, the problem is one not only of technology, but of attitudes, of cultural heritage. You can train people with the latest technology, you can bring in your experts, but amazingly when you leave there seems to be a reversion to the old way. I am afraid a great evolutionary period must take place before all of the nations of the world can really be productive in terms of food and, I might add, utilize the latest technology in terms of food.

When one starts planning his production, there is another larger problem, and that is a problem that he cannot control, the problem of weather. Just at the time when we think we are programming the proper amount of different commodities, we find that there is a drought or an early winter or some other severe weather condition which seems to throw the whole thing out of kilter. That’s something I think that should be of great concern, because the more one brings everything under management, the bigger one’s mistake is going to be and the more catastrophic the results.

I frankly fear production control as a general policy. I think an evolution of the price stabilization plan, which is currently being discussed in Ottawa and to which the Minister of Agriculture and Food has made reference, may be the nearest thing that we can get at this time to ensure that farmers stay in production in terms of those commodities that are covered by that particular legislation which is proposed. As I understand that bill, there will not be any restriction on the quantity produced but, at the same time, there will not be sufficient incentive to make people produce for the sake of producing when the demand is not there for those commodities, so the legitimate farmer who has a big investment and who farms as a way of life then will be able to stay in farming.

I am sure that when the plan is fully developed it will not satisfy everyone. It probably won’t go far enough. But I think that it will certainly be an improvement. I was happy to hear the minister say that moneys of this province will be used in conjunction with the federal government and the farmers to see that the plan works to ensure that the farmers can stay in business. We must ever be mindful of the fact that Ontario cannot go it alone, regardless of what the member for York South said. Ontario is not an entity unto itself that can act regardless of what federal policies or programmes may be or the policies or programmes of other countries.

We can only see what has happened in terms of our beef problem. As soon as Ottawa even starts taking measures on the importation of cattle, both on the hoof and as carcasses, then we have a response from the United States. We must never forget that we have a very powerful nation to the south of us that can take economic retaliatory measures if necessary -- and may very well, if we only think of what may temporarily assist Ontario farmers. So Ontario must act in conjunction with the rest of the provinces in a co-ordinated policy. It must act with the federal government in terms of international policy and international agreements. Surely the object of the exercise from our point of view is to ensure that we have a healthy farm community.

We’ve heard from our NDP friends that we should socialize the farmers.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): When?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: The member for York South says “What are you talking about?” and our friend, Mr. Young, says “When?” I’ll tell you when: March 17 of this year -- and I’m quoting from Hansard:

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): We should socialize the farmers.

Mr. Young: Oh come on, come on. A little bit of humour there.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: If you can call that humour, I don’t.

If you look at any nation that tried to socialize the farmers -- the member for York South has just come back from Romania and I suppose Russia --

Mr. MacDonald: This is cheap politicking.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: I’m sure he knows the history of farming in the USSR where they’ve had to give land back to the farmers. I think on 4 per cent of the land that the farmers own themselves, or can keep for their own production, they produce about 15 per cent of the total produce. I think we have to keep our farmers independent of government in terms of communal farms and in terms of socialization --

Mr. MacDonald: You have really raised a red herring.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: -- and at the same time we have to work with them.

Mr. Young: Of course, Mr. Martel was meaning the member for Prince Edward-Lennox when he said that.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: He might like to socialize me -- I don’t think he’d like to nationalize me --

Mr. Young: He was just having a little fun with the member.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: -- and I doubt that he would want to confiscate me.

At the same time, when we are talking about the farmer I think that we have to treat the whole subject in a very serious vein. I don’t mean to posture politically -- and I hope you don’t, in criticizing what Ontario has done -- because I am personally convinced that Ontario has done and is doing everything possible to help the cause of the farmer.

We have heard the question of farm land is a critical one. Again, this troubles me because I really don’t believe that land is disappearing. The minister has made reference to this. I think as a conscientious citizen of this province, of this nation, and with the premise that we must ensure that we can produce our own foodstuffs, we don’t want to see our lands disappear, never to be used for farm purposes. At the same time I think we have to be careful that we don’t freeze the farmer into a position -- when I’m talking of freezing I’m not talking of weather conditions and the oil crisis but about freezing the farmer to his land in an operation which may be uneconomic.

I don’t blame the farmer at times for wanting to sell his land or parts of his land. It seems that in many cases this is the only way that he’s been able to make any money. The price of food has escalated -- there is no question about that. In 1973 the food prices were up about 18 per cent, and they were up about 16 per cent in 1974. The farmer didn’t benefit from that. His input costs are up. The costs of all of the materials -- products that he buys in his operation -- are up. He is not a force to be reckoned with -- like organized labour for example, and its demands for high wages that are passed along to the consumer of other commodities.

Mr. Young: What about the fertilizer companies? They are charging more for the fertilizer.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: It is easy to say that farmers should pay the minimum wage to all of the farm help, but that certainly is difficult.

So we have a lot of problems, and I’m convinced personally that there is no magic solution. There is no simple panacea. We can only do our best to ensure our farmers stay in production. I am convinced that, with the present Minister of Agriculture and Food at the helm, we will ensure that our farmers are helped in every way possible by government, without destroying their incentives, without making them wards of any government.

Mr. Chairman: Vote 1701, item 1. The hon. member for Huron-Bruce.

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to make some comment with respect to land-use planning, particularly in view of the fact the minister alluded to it, and also the member who has just spoken. And I understood him to say he really doesn’t believe our land is disappearing.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: No, I didn’t say that. I didn’t say land wasn’t disappearing. I questioned whether it was disappearing under asphalt and concrete at 26 acres an hour. That’s what I questioned.

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Chairman, the minister misunderstands me, I wasn’t referring to him at all. I was referring to the member for Prince Edward-Lennox.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Oh.

Mr. Gaunt: I was also interested in what the minister had to say with respect to this matter. I gather he has softened his position with respect to land-use planning over the past number of months. I followed his statements in the press and, at one point in time, I was encouraged by what the minister was saying. He was firm. He was definitive. He was saying we have to preserve our good agricultural land, I have detected, in the last little while, a weakening of that stance. I hope I am not correct in my assessment, but that is the way I see it at this point in time.

The minister said that as far as growth is concerned, we’ve got to have growth, and we’ve got to put growth somewhere. Where else are we going to put it unless we put it on our land?

Well, of course, that is true. The point is we can’t fight growth, but we can certainly fight for sensible growth. That is really what I am talking about.

We don’t put growth in the province on our best agricultural land when we have 98 per cent of it in class 4, 5 and 6, and even beyond that. The good agricultural land in the province, indeed in Canada, is very limited, In Ontario, less than seven per cent of the land is arable, with only 2½ per cent in the class 1 and class 2 bracket. It’s a very small amount that we are talking about. Not all class 1 and class 2 soils are in an area that favour top crop production, because of climatic reasons. That narrows it even further when we are talking in terms of heat units and ideal climatic conditions under which good crops can be produced.

We not only have to have good soil but ideal climatic conditions and heat units as well in order to maximize our production. When we are talking on those terms, we are talking about a very small percentage of the total land mass in the Province of Ontario,

The studies of the Minister of Agriculture and Food prove that the main concentration of farming must be done on class 1 and 2 agricultural lands that have long growing seasons. Therefore, I say these high quality lands must be preserved. That is essentially the point I have had over the past number of years, and the point that I continue to maintain and to abide by, because I think it is very important. I think good land is a productive, renewable resource, second only in importance to people.

I want to talk just for a moment about some comparisons with respect to the productivity of class 1 land as opposed to the other classes. I think it is very revealing and this comes from the assessment of soil productivity for agriculture. It is report No. 4; it was prepared in November, 1971.

First of all, we take the class of soil -- and this refers to corn production. Class 1 produced 136 bushels per acre; class 2, 105; class 3, 80; and class 4, 59. No yields were obtained for classes 5, 6 and 7 because none was available.

It is apparent from this and also from other studies available -- this isn’t the only one -- that farmers do not attempt to grow corn on class 4 soil, as is evident in this study where of 497 sites only seven were located on class 4 soil. It would seem that most corn is grown on class 1 and 2 land.

There is a 20 per cent decrease in productivity between class 1 and class 2 land and I think that is revealing. When you move down the scale to class 4 there is a 50 per cent difference between the production of class 1 soil and the production of class 4. We can see the relative importance of class 1 agricultural land in terms of production and output. It is obvious.

The largest losses of agricultural land are now coming in the counties having the most 1 and 2 land. Mr. Edward Gray, of the school of agricultural economics at the OAC this year, 1975, said southern Ontario has over the last 20 years lost 20 per cent of its top farm land, representing four million acres.

This misuse of land mass may seem on the surface to be old and an ongoing problem; however, this is not the case. From 1951 to 1966 the vast majority of removal of land from agriculture was of the rough unimproved acreages. From 1966 to 1971 the removal of improved land of high fertility has increased by 600 per cent, while the unimproved land dropped to slightly over 10 per cent. I think it is fair to say that good agricultural land immediately adjacent to the big cities at any rate cannot be saved and will not be saved because it is just a matter of time before urban sprawl devours it.

The land which must be protected is land with the capability of top crop production, situated away from the large cities. I think it is important to realize that the actual acreage required for agriculture depends on population, diet, agricultural products exported and imported, as well as productivity. There are a lot of things which go into the total mix.

I was interested to note in the little production put out by the Ontario Agricultural College, called “Notes on Agriculture” -- it comes out periodically; it is very good too, I must say, and is put out by the University of Guelph -- there was an item by Mr. T. R. Stanton. It calculated that 1.15 acres of improved land is currently required to produce the basic food needed for one human being. Using this figure about nine million people could be supported on the 10.5 million acres of class I and 2 land we still have left. This nine million population is well below our projected 1991 population of 11.4 million. Furthermore, although the acreage required per person has historically fallen greatly, it is conceivable that it may decline very little in the future.

I think that’s an adequate and accurate assessment of the picture, because obviously there comes a point when the law of diminishing return sets in insofar as technological advances are concerned. We made tremendous progress in this particular field over the last 20 years. Ultimately, there has to come a point when our advances are slowed, because we just can’t come up with anything any better or produce any more, given the available technology at any given time. So, because of the fact that we’ve seen such a tremendous increase in production due to technology and the application of that technology in the last 20 years, I think it’s a fair assumption, on the part of those who should know, that the increased production due to this kind of technology is going to be somewhat limited in the next number of years in comparison to what it has been in the past.

I suppose I couldn’t help ending these few remarks on this kind of subject without getting a little parochial and, in so doing, I should point out to the minister that out of the 53 counties and districts in Ontario the following eight counties, Bruce, Huron, Perth, Lambton, Waterloo, Wellington, Middlesex and Oxford -- which make up approximately two per cent of the land area in the province -- account for 48 per cent of the total barley grown in the province, 59 per cent of the total mixed grain grown in the province, 83 per cent of the total dried beans grown in the province, 46 per cent of the shelled corn, 46 per cent of the fodder corn, 50 per cent of the cattle and 63 per cent of the hogs marketed in the province. Those figures are from the agricultural statistics for Ontario, 1973; that’s publication 20 produced by your ministry. Most of the eight counties directly affected by the ripple effect, I would say, of the various developments that have taken place in the province over the last two or three years are being seriously hampered in their ability to cope with this kind of thing.

When I’m talking about the ripple effect of development, I’m talking about things like the new city out east here, Cedarwood; I’m talking about things like the airport out at Pickering; I’m talking about all of these developments that have taken place, where farmers are being bought out for one reason or the other and they are coming up to areas such as the eight counties I have mentioned, with a pocketful of money, or half a pocketful of money, and they’re paying much greater prices for land in those areas than can be paid by the local people or by young people who are attempting to get into the farming business. So what happens throughout is that the price plateau for land continues to rise, because farmers are being displaced in one area and they’re going up to other areas and paying high prices for land because they’ve got to have it. That’s their livelihood. That’s what they know best and that’s what they are going to continue doing.

As a result, you get this tremendous ripple effect that is affecting land prices right across the province and the ability of farmers to stay on their land and of young people to get into the business of farming. It certainly has a tremendous bearing throughout in terms of capitalization of farming today.

A very high percentage of the quality soil in these eight counties is being subjected to these pressures and price increases. When you consider that half of Ontario’s food production comes from those counties, and given the fact that a very high percentage of the class 1 and 2 agricultural land in this province lies within the boundaries of those eight counties, I think it’s very important indeed that the minister remain firm on this matter of protecting good agricultural land.

I am not talking about classes 5, 6, 7 and 8. I am not worried about those at all. We can build houses on that land. We can put roads through it. We can do all kinds of things with it. That’s fine by me. I don’t care about that. But I do care about the class 1 and 2 agricultural land. When someone says to me, “Don’t worry about it. We have lots of land to go around. We will never run out of land,” frankly, Mr. Chairman, and with the greatest respect to those people who say that, I think they are missing the point completely.

Mr. Chairman: Would the minister care to make any remarks?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: No.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Chairman, on a matter of privilege, regarding the comments I made in connection with the disappearance of land, which I believe the member for Huron-Bruce attributed to the minister, I would just like to correct the record to indicate that I did make reference to the disappearance of land. It was the minister who corrected the frightening figures in terms of the rate of disappearance of the land.

I want to make it clear that my premise in the whole issue was that we must ensure that we are self-sufficient in terms of food, which of course demands that we retain our good agricultural land. There is no question about that, because our urban development is taking place around the Great Lakes -- on Lake Ontario, Lake Erie and so on -- where our best land is, and urban expansion has eaten into that land. So there’s no question that we must be careful of that.

The point I wanted to make, Mr. Chairman, was that the farmer is getting frozen into a position of having to protect his land without any offer of compensation. I don’t like to use the word “compensation” for land freezes, for zoning and that type of thing, but when you are locked into an industry which is often uneconomic, then you are being penalized if you say that we have to protect farm land at the expense of the farmer who is actually there and who in many cases cannot operate economically. That’s the point that I wanted to make.

I didn’t want it thought that I am not concerned about the disappearance of good farm land. The Spencerville project, for example, is on the poor farm land, not the class 1 and 2 farm land that the member speaks of. I wanted to relate it in that context, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Peel South.

Mr. Kennedy: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak at the time of these estimates. As an agrologist who hasn’t practised agrology since I entered the House, I would like to comment -- it’s not that I don’t have that interest; I do -- as an agrologist coming from an urban area. That’s rather a happy situation, because I can view it from both sides and wear a couple of hats. I come from an urban area that has been swept up by urban sprawl, an area that used to have one of the finest records in the Province of Ontario in production of crops and livestock and a great variety of those products from tender fruit to beef cattle in a 35-mile-long county from the lake to the Orangeville area.

First, Mr. Chairman, I would like to add my commendation to Mr. Bennett, the deputy minister, who has dedicated his life to agriculture and done it so well. I know that members in this House and farmers throughout Ontario received the news of his appointment with great favour.

There must be a little mental telepathy going on here among all parties because much of the subject matter that has been discussed was on my mind.

Farming is one of the most challenging and rewarding careers that one could embark upon. I think that I can speak with some knowledge and authority on this from my experience in this area of activity. I was pleased that the minister in his response to the opening remarks mentioned that, of this year’s graduates from the two-year community or agricultural course, anyway, no less than 50 per cent have returned to farming. One of the things I was going to lament, and I do, was the departure of young people from this exciting field.

I had a secondary school class in here one day from my area and we were discussing new careers, but somehow or other I got around to asking them how many of them had had any experience in farming. Not many had. I asked how many of them were interested in farming. Some of them looked a little bewildered. They just weren’t knowledgeable about this, but two out of the class said they would be interested in that field of activity. It brought me to the conclusion that I wonder if we should be doing more in our urban areas to tell the story of farming.

There used to be a feeling, Mr. Chairman, and it still exists to some extent, that if you are not raised on the farm and from several generations of farm people, then you don’t fit in and won’t make a success of it.

Mr. Roy: That’s for sure.

Mr. Kennedy: Well, it isn’t true. We know of cases where people who are competent in business and have some savvy about farming have been very, very successful. I see no reason at all why these young people can’t be successful in it. Perhaps we should even have some kind of mandatory course in our secondary schools, even in the inner-core areas of our cities. I don’t mean a year-long course. but they should certainly be knowledgeable about it. How this is handled through guidance people and so on, I don’t know. But something has happened in view of this 50 per cent. I think probably the community colleges have opened up so many new opportunities in education for the young people. Maybe that’s it. Whatever the reason is, I think it is commendable. I wasn’t sure if the member for Huron-Bruce was optimistic or pessimistic about the outlook for agriculture. I couldn’t detect it.

Mr. Roy: He is always optimistic.

Mr. Stokes: It is hard to tell sometimes.

Mr. Kennedy: He said eight counties produced so much, and to me this is the very reason to be pleased and proud and optimistic.

Mr. Stokes: He is always amiable, but sometimes pessimistic.

Mr. Kennedy: But I wasn’t sure if he was. Then he went on to say the future is gloomy or something to that effect. Anyway, I was caught up with this question, too, of the loss of the 26 acres per hour. I have heard this. At a meeting last night in our area the agricultural story -- maybe it’s because of the food pricing, the review board and all the interest in food now -- seems to have created concern and interest among urban people.

Mr. Stokes: What is it around here tonight? Are you Tories trying to get the Minister of Agriculture and Food out of trouble?

Mr. Kennedy: If you listen you’ll find out.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: You are so enthusiastic about the whole thing.

Mr. Stokes: I thought he was doing rather well.

Mr. Roy: Are you optimistic?

Mr. Kennedy: Yes, I’m always optimistic.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. Kennedy: Not very optimistic for you fellows, though, in the next consultation with the electorate.

Mr. Roy: The only time to get pessimistic is when we go to the polls.

Mr. Kennedy: This question of the 26 acres comes up in unusual places -- at least it hasn’t been traditional -- I’ve checked this out. I couldn’t find the source of these statistics. I’m glad the minister explained it. What isn’t told --

Mr. Stokes: He couldn’t tell where they went either.

Mr. Kennedy: Well, he found out.

Mr. Stokes: He just questioned it.

Mr. Kennedy: No, no, but he knows where the statistics come from. So okay, I read the book too, you know. It’s an excellent book.

Mr. Stokes: He doesn’t know where the acres went.

Mr. Kennedy: Okay, there is a drop of something of 1.8 million acres in that five-year span and, sure enough, by my calculations using the new math, Mr. Minister, I find that it’s right.

Mr. Stokes: Lock the doors, a million acres have been lost.

Mr. Kennedy: But from 1951 to 1966 the acreage has been fairly stable, just a slight drop over those years. With agriculture, you seem to be able to find statistics to prove anything. I never have seen anything like it.

There’s a report in the “Queen’s Quarterly” which I picked up. Some of you have heard of Norman Pearson. He wrote an article about the same thing. I’m just going to refer briefly to it, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Roy: Is that in order for tonight?

Mr. Kennedy: “Canada has about 160 million acres of farmland. We use about 400,000 acres every 10 years. This sounds as if we have no worries for 400 years. That is a delusion.” Then he goes on about Canada’s cold and this type of thing as the member for Huron-Bruce very properly mentioned. But he goes on: “At the present time we have eight million acres of good soil in favoured climatic zones which get about half the urban growth, a loss at present rates of about 200,000 acres per decade.” This is the good land.

By my calculations that is 20,000 acres a year, 55 acres a day, and 2.3 acres an hour. Quite a difference. You can do anything with figures. Somewhere else he describes even better quality land, and that’s going out of production at less than a half an acre an hour.

I want to go on, Mr. Chairman. By and large if you go through these statistics we have a surplus of food in Canada. It varies. It’s up; it’s down. If you take a crop and see it down this year compared to last year, then you can cry the blues for the rest of the year. But you’ve got to take this in total over a period of years, and you’ll find that agriculture in Ontario is in a pretty healthy state.

I don’t, of course, support --

Mr. Roy: Keep talking.

Mr. Kennedy: -- this decline in acreage. We don’t like it, but we’ve got to put it into some perspective.

Mr. Samis: It’s a fact.

Mr. Kennedy: The major problem, and here again I think it’s out of perspective because one of the major pressures is right around this Metro area and through the “golden horseshoe.” We all know this. So I think we should have a look at that aspect.

Some land in our own community has been frozen and is not in production to any significant extent. I don’t know if the maps show it as being class 1 or 2 but I know when it was farmed they barely eked out a living. That is in suspense at the moment and I don’t see any likelihood of it being brought back into production. I think this could be released for housing without any impact whatever on the production of agricultural commodities.

Mr. Gaunt: You’ve got to distinguish between use and productivity.

Mr. Kennedy: If you want to know what the use is, it’s in weeds, which they cut twice a year. A city farmer has a few horses on it, this kind of thing. It’s not really contributing much to food production.

I think what is needed around this area is a good commonsense inventory of what is available and the quality of that land; if it has passed the point of no return, let’s deal with it. We have in company with this population statistics and the Toronto-centred region plan and it seems to me we could make some progress if an inventory was taken and we matched these two up and sorted this out, probably to the detriment of neither; certainly not to the detriment of agriculture and to the benefit of those in need of housing.

I want to touch, too, on the tremendous capacity that farmers have to increase production. It is just unbelievable and if you will refer to the book, and have done this, you will see this is true. If we were in need, I think we could produce many-fold what we are doing, if we had the need, the will and the direction or the advice in this regard.

During the war, I recall the word went out that we needed increased pork production. I don’t know why Alberta sticks in my mind -- maybe it was ultra-Conservative, although I wasn’t particularly interested in that aspect of life at the time -- but the farmers there increased it. It just shot up -- I don’t know -- 50 times in a few years because of course you can do this. Obviously grain then went into feeding and so on but there is tremendous flexibility and I can’t be other than confident in the agricultural community and its ability to respond to the need.

In his opening remarks, the member for Huron-Bruce mentioned that cattle output dropped five per cent. I am not sure what he means by output. If you look again at the statistics we find that cattle numbers, by and large, have stayed fairly even. I have some figures here somewhere -- there is no shortage of figures, with all respect, in the area of agriculture, but it’s in the book there. Here they are.

Mr. Stokes: A lot of figures but few facts.

Mr. Kennedy: No, these compiled statistics are very good.

Mr. Samis: Where are they from?

Mr. Kennedy: They are from the department here; some from Statistics Canada. The annual report has all this information and it’s a great bellwether. Output -- that term isn’t used here and I am not sure what you mean.

The 1973 statistics show in 1946 there were 2,614,000; in 1973, 3,168,500 total cattle. It sagged a bit in 1970-1971, but then climbed up to this figure. In the years 1960-1964 there was an increase in numbers. Production changes with demand, we all know this, with market and shifting conditions, and it’s easy to take these statistics out of context and can be very misleading.

I wanted to touch on the crop production. Winter wheat, from 1941 to 1945; the five-year average is 28.3 bushels per acre. This is, as I recall, about what we would hope for on the farm and would have called a pretty good crop. It went up to 41.6 in the 1966 to 1975 span; a 46 per cent increase.

Similarly, oats went from 35.3 to 54.2 bushels. Barley, from 30.4 -- the minister mentioned this -- to 49.6 bushels per acre. There are some other commodities here -- grain, soya beans and so on -- the story’s the same, to varying degrees, with all of them.

Mr. Stokes: Are you filibustering?

Mr. Kennedy: No. If you listen you’ll learn something about it.

Mr. Stokes: I’m trying.

Mr. Kennedy: We listen to you about the north. In fact, we hear it perpetually. I like the north. Learn something about the south.

Mr. Samis: It’s all we ever hear about.

Mr. Kennedy: No, it isn’t.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Would the member please go ahead?

Mr. Kennedy: Shelled corn, a key economic crop, went up from 45.8 to 82.6 bushels per acre. New varieties are coming in and the acreage went up from 238,000 to 918,000, almost a million acres. Hybrid corn has done this, and the new varieties, the new technology which the member opposite has mentioned. Silage corn is up about 30 per cent in tons per acre over these years. Even hay, a good staple product, is up from 1.89 tons to 2.53 tons. I tell the members the farmer, in concert with the technologist and the researcher has done a tremendous job here.

We speak again of declining acreage but there is the opportunity to open up new tracts of land which are available. I recall a few years ago seeing pictures of Saskatchewan -- this will warm the socialists’ hearts -- where they cleared new land maybe 20 or 25 years ago; tremendous capacity acreage which can be used for certain uses. The north has fallow land that could be brought back in. I can’t get gloomy about the prospects for the agricultural community, Mr. Chairman.

I think, though, we’ve got to recognize that you cannot move, say, 100 acres of corn which use 2,500 heat units from Kent and put them in some other cooler area. You just can’t do it. That area isn’t adaptable to that. What you can do, of course, through research and experimentation, is develop new varieties, new fertilizers and so on. There is a potential there.

I think we should have incentives that will keep as much agricultural land as possible in production. I cannot see directing how land is going to be used and forcing farmers to keep land going against their wills. This may be what some of the members of the party opposite might like to see done but I cannot support that. I think we should try to bring back into production as much class 1 and 2 land as we can through incentives.

I think, as well as moving with this very good breakthrough in the stabilization programme, we should work toward the removal of taxes from agricultural land as it is in England and has been for some years. The buildings, that’s a different story. To me, this type of incentive perhaps would be more economical than some of the other measures we might employ. If we can, we should try not to utilize this top-quality land for housing.

Mr. Chairman, to sum up, we need a land inventory programme, we need to take a look at this situation in the high pressure areas, and we need to proceed with the stabilization fund. Perhaps we can also get the message across to planners, perhaps more forcefully than now, of the need to retain this type of land for the purpose it has been used for over these years with great success.

Mr. Chairman, our farmers, miners and lumbermen were the people who developed this country through hard work and by utilizing the resources that were available to them. I know we pay tribute to the farmers at the fall fairs, the exhibition and that kind of thing, but if they had the tribute paid them that they deserve, we would arrange for a parade right down Bay St., just as we do for certain other groups.

Mr. Samis: Oh, my God! Down to Bay St., where all the barons are?

Mr. Kennedy: There is one little problem. At the time you would like to have a parade, the farmers probably would be so busy they would be among those who couldn’t attend.

Mr. Samis: Why not have a Roman circus? They would like that, wouldn’t they?

Mr. Kennedy: Mr. Chairman, I am convinced that under this minister our agriculture has never been in better hands, and I look to the future with great optimism.

Mr. Chairman: We are trying to rotate here. The member for Kent had asked for a few minutes. Is that all right with the member for York South?

Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to say a few words on this first vote. I recognize that the two critics, the critic for the Liberal Party and the critic for the New Democratic Party, were quick to get to their feet this evening, as was the minister, the member for Prince Edward-Lennox and the hon. member for Peel South, but I would like to draw the minister’s attention to some of the problems of the farmers who come to me.

A great deal has been said about agriculture, in particular that 1974 was one of the record years for the cash-crop farmer. However, for the livestock farmer it wasn’t such a healthy year. There was a lot of complaining and a lot of bitterness. The farmers were not asleep, though. They got their pencils out and figured that if they sold their cash crops, such as corn and soya beans, they could go down south for the winter. I think the price of corn got up to about $3.80 one day, a record price and one of the highest prices I can remember since I came into this world.

However, there are complaints. Farmers come to me and say, “We are told the farmers have to compete in a free world market but we can’t compete equally.” I have a letter here which I think might be of interest. It’s from a farmer who went to the United States and got the prices of the inputs he needs to farm for 1975. This letter is dated April 21, 1975. He went to the United States to see what prices he would have to pay if he was a farmer in the United States in order to grow his crops for 1975. In this letter, he says that if he lived in the United States he could save $2,800. He gives me prices of wheat sprays, fertilizer, plough shares, the price of equipment, and he said that he could do a lot better in the United States than he could in the Province of Ontario.

The difference in price is alarming. I’ll just give you one: I think it was on April 18 or 19 he had to pay $235 a ton for urea in Ontario, and in the United States he could buy it on the same day at $195, $40 less a ton. He also said if he bought 6-24-24 in Ontario he had to pay $160 and in the United States he had to pay $148.

These are some of the things that farmers have been bringing to my attention. The input of goods and supplies that farmers need is a lot lower in the US than in the Province of Ontario. I know this doesn’t come under the minister’s portfolio, but it is a problem and it is a concern of a number of farmers who have brought this to my attention. I wonder if the minister has made any investigation into some of these differences in prices.

As far as prices of class 1 and class 2 land are concerned, I think it would be a shame to have cities built on some of the land that exists in the part from which I come -- in Kent county and Elgin county. I think we should do everything possible so that that land won’t be used for anything else but agricultural purposes. I know that the world’s population is growing. We hear so much about starvation all over the world, and I think we may be the bread basket in the future.

Another thing that concerns me, in addition to the high costs we pay for goods that are needed in agriculture, is that we have to ship our products from where they are grown to the great metropolitan areas. As the hon. member for Peel South said, this metropolitan area is congested. They are concerned about land and housing, and yet our goods, our soya beans, have to be shipped here to Toronto or to Hamilton in order to be crushed. Our cigarettes and tobacco are manufactured in one plant right here in the city of Toronto, where there should be some programme to encourage those industries to locate in towns and villages where land is available. Those town and village councils would like to get a small industry, but it seems they all locate here. Whatever programme is being used, it isn’t working. The towns and villages have land available for small industries and some of these products that we produce in southwestern Ontario or in any part of the province should be processed or manufactured right where they are produced. Those people who help to harvest or plant have to have work during the winter months, and this would be something that would help rural Ontario.

In this great “golden horseshoe” you are concerned about land and houses, and it just makes me wonder when I sit here and listen to the concern of so many hon. members who live in this part of the province. They are so crowded you don’t know which programme to bring in, or which programme to experiment with in order to solve your problems. I think there has to be a programme where Ontario towns and villages can get some of the smaller industries, or even the industries that process some of the products that are produced in these areas. I am not going to re-echo what has been said before. It has been very interesting to listen to the different critics, and the minister. I hope this suggestion will be considered, or some programme to assist rural Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I want to make a comment or two about the reference made to input costs in the United States.

I was interested in those figures. There is really no reason in the world why that farmer from the hon. member’s riding cannot bring fertilizer into Ontario if he can purchase it in the United States. As far as I know, he can bring in chemical weed control or pesticide control, provided he has a permit from the Ministry of the Environment to do so for his own uses.

I would point out to my hon. friend that it is understandable there are lower prices in the United States for those kind of input costs.

When one compares the price of, we’ll say, fluid milk in the Province of Ontario it is $12.01 per hundred in comparison with an average price of about $7.60 in the United States for the same milk. The price of industrial milk, almost the same price in the United States compared with a gross price here of industrial milk of around $11 a net price of about $10.56 after the holdback for export deductions is made.

Take a look at the difference in egg prices, the difference in broiler prices. There is just no comparison. That is one of the reasons we have this importation of broilers into Canada in recent months. I suppose it can be attributed to the fact our farmers are enjoying much better prices in this province than they are there, for the simple reason we have provided the legislative authority whereby they can bargain collectively to establish the kind of a price structure they now enjoy as far as income is concerned.

So when my friend makes references to, or at least when my friend’s constituent makes references to him about how cheap it is to farm in the United States, I think it would be valid to remind him of the kind of price structure we have in this country of ours. All of it was brought about by that kind of legislation.

Mr. Spence: Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring to the minister’s attention, too, that on the day this farmer went over to the United States to get these prices of inputs for agriculture, the price of corn was 30 cents a bushel more in the United States than it was in the Province of Ontario. Also, the price of soya beans was 30 cents higher in the United States than it was in Ontario.

This was one of the things of concern to him. Why we can’t compete equally? I do appreciate the minister bringing to my attention the milk situation. I didn’t go into that with him, but I did discuss the costs of cash crops.

Mr. Chairman: The member for York South.

Mr. W. Hodgson (York North): Did he get 50 per cent of his tax paid for in the United States?

Mr. Spence: No, but he seemed to look a lot happier than we in Ontario.

Mr. Chairman: The member for York South.

Mr. MacDonald: On this main estimate, which provides an opportunity to deal with policy, I want to return briefly to the question of farm income maintenance or farm income protection. First, to recap the BC situation and correct one or two misrepresentations that crept into it, but more important, to come back to Ontario and the allegations that Ontario can’t afford to go it alone. It is interesting to note that in BC, and let me remind you again, Mr. Chairman, this is an achievement of the last two years on a purely voluntary basis, every commodity group has opted in by voluntary vote. There was -- if I may come back to my friend from Prince Edward-Lennox -- no socialist compulsion. I am interested in the extent to which the meetings at the moment across the Province of Ontario seem to indicate as great an enthusiasm for this kind of a programme as undoubtedly emerged in BC. By the end of this year, which will be no more than three years from the institution of the programme, we have the assurance there are likely to be 90 per cent of the farmers of BC covered by the programme.

What is it, Mr. Chairman? It covers dairy products, fruit, field tomatoes, pigs, broiler hatching, egg producers, greenhouse tomatoes and cucumbers and cattle. Interestingly enough, Mr. Minister, I don’t know whether you are aware of this, cattle came under it by a voluntary vote of 34 to four in favour. Compare that with the general attitude of the cattlemen in the Province of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: They are not in yet.

Mr. MacDonald: They have voted and they are going to come in. With that sort of a vote they are going to come in.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: They haven’t brought them in and they are not likely to bring them in on that basis.

Mr. MacDonald: How do you mean?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: They are not likely to bring them in on the same basis because they say quite frankly they can’t afford to do it.

Mr. MacDonald: I am not aware of the detail the minister is referring to.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I am aware of the detail. I have had conversations with your friend out there, too.

Mr. MacDonald: You may be trying to frustrate the thrust of my debate but you are not going to succeed.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I am not trying to frustrate anything. I am just trying to put the plain facts out.

Mr. MacDonald: I am telling you the cattlemen have voted 34 to four to come in under the programme.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: All that glitters isn’t gold.

Mr. Chairman: The member for York South has the floor.

Mr. MacDonald: They may have to come in on a different basis but they have indicated their desire to come into the programme.

Knocking on the door you have got turkey, broiler and raspberry people. I repeat, in total it’s 90 per cent of the farmers. The minister can’t have it both ways.

At one stage he said Dave Stupich came to Ottawa and was in effect pleading with the federal government to bail them out because they couldn’t afford the cost of $26 million or $27 million. In the next breath, with a characteristic degree of consistency, he says Ontario can’t do what that oil revenue rich Province of BC can do.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I didn’t say it was oil revenue rich. I said Alberta.

Mr. MacDonald: No, you said that BC and Saskatchewan, with their richness in oil and so on --

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Not BC. I said Alberta and Saskatchewan.

Mr. MacDonald: Right. They cannot do it. Let me say to you that BC is going to go it alone.

If the federal government won’t come in, BC will go it alone and they will go it and they will meet the $26 million in cost.

Let’s come back to what that would mean in Ontario terms.

Mr. Chairman: Time.

Mr. MacDonald: The minister himself in speaking to the --

Mr. Chairman: I remind the member that we are close to the closing hour.

Mr. MacDonald: Yes, I am aware of that. I was wanting to get it in before 10:30 p.m., but with all the interruptions and provocations we may or may not get it done.

An hon. member: Go ahead.

Mr. MacDonald: At the Ontario Association of Agricultural Societies on Thursday, Feb. 20, the minister himself said that if the BC model plan were to be put into effect in the Province of Ontario, it would cost $140 million in 1975.

Let me say to the minister, and let me ask all the people of the Province of Ontario, with a budget of $10 billion, is $140 million too much to put agriculture on a sound economic basis?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I never said it was.

Mr. MacDonald: Okay. You said it was too costly and your colleague from Prince Edward-Lennox said Ontario can’t go it alone. I repeat; Ontario can go alone, Ontario doesn’t need to use the procrastination of Ottawa and its ineffectual kind of a programme. One hundred and forty million dollars, as compared with $108 million, which your colleague the provincial Treasurer has handed over to industry to make jobs, when not a single job will be made by it.

Mr. Chairman: Time.

Mr. MacDonald: It is time for this minister to get up in cabinet and say: “Put up or shut up.” Don’t go out to the farmers of Ontario and con them on the eve of an election to continue to vote Tory on the basis that their interests will be met.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please; it is 10:30 o’clock.

Mr. MacDonald: Is it? Okay, I will carry on Thursday, thank you.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I simply have to say this --

Mr. MacDonald: No, the minister can’t say it. I’m sorry, I am going to continue.

Mr. Chairman: I call the member to order.

Mr. MacDonald: I will continue on Thursday.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Will the members take their seats, please?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I will put it in Hansard, because it is incorrect and I didn’t say it.

Mr. MacDonald: No, I have the floor if anybody is going to have the floor.

Mr. Chairman: Will the members take their seats?

Mr. MacDonald: Okay.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves that the committee rise and report.

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of supply reports progress and asks permission to sit again.

Report agreed to.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, before I move the adjournment of the House, on Thursday we’ll continue with this debate; and should we conclude the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food we will return to the estimates of the Provincial Secretariat for Justice.

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

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 10:30 o’clock, p.m.