Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House resumed at 8:00 o’clock, p.m.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FOOD (CONCLUDED)

On vote 1702:

Mr. Chairman: Before we continue with the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, the chair will recognize the member for Wentworth North.

Mr. D. W. Ewen (Wentworth North): Yes, Mr. Chairman, through you to the members of the Legislature, it’s a pleasure for me tonight to introduce, in the east gallery, a group of young students from Ryerson United Church in Ancaster under the capable guidance of heroic Mr. Roy Sheldrick.

Mr. Chairman: When the committee rose at 6 o’clock we had completed a portion of item 2. We had ended at the extension services on page R15. Is there any comment or observation concerning food land development? Shall this section carry, food land development? Any comments on that portion of the estimates?

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Mr. Chairman, this is a relatively new section in the ministry. I understand that the ministry is encouraging people who have idle land of one sort or another to put this land into production. I believe this is the thrust of the food land development branch. I am wondering exactly what sort of methods the ministry is employing through this branch to achieve the objectives which the ministry has under this particular programme.

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): The branch will serve all those matters within the ministry involving land use. As I mentioned this afternoon, the branch will have capability to make input into all matters pertaining to land use in other government ministries and agencies of the government. That really sums it up. I can go into greater detail, but that really sums up what they will be doing.

Mr. Gaunt: At the moment it is really a branch to put forward views and opinions to other ministries; is that essentially what it’s going to do?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: This is right; that is one of the main things.

Mr. Gaunt: The minister made a speech some while ago in regard to land sitting idle, particularly land held by urbanites or used for summer home purposes or perhaps used for recreational purposes, in the wintertime for snowmobiling and so on, but wasn’t really being utilized to any extent for food or crop production. I think the thrust of his speech on several occasions when he has been talking about this is that this land will ultimately have to be put into production in one way or another. I think the minister left the whole suggestion up in the air as to how this was going to be done and I am wondering if this is the particular branch through which it would be done? If so, how would it be done?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: There is no thought of legislation or regulation along this line, but certainly by persuasion and through the extension branch offices we have been able to try to persuade some people to make use of land which is not at present used for agricultural purposes.

Land held by the government in large blocks here and there, when it has a capability or use in agricultural food production, will be coming directly under the management of this branch. The Ministry of Government Services will own the land but it will be managed by our ministry and the leases, while they will be held by the Ministry of Government Services, will be administered by us. In many cases we will be having something to do with trying to find appropriate people to handle the land.

I believe many of these farms which have not hitherto been used, where there is good capability for food production, and which have been owned by other than farmers in the local community, are being leased and used to a remarkable degree. In connection with Pickering, for instance, as I mentioned this afternoon much more of that land will be in actual food production this coming year than in the past.

Our agricultural representative service branch officers are being served, really, by this new branch, which is presently in the organization stage. It’s really not all put together yet by any means. They will have, as agricultural representatives, much more input into decisions that are made at the local level of various ministries.

For instance, if the Ministry of Transportation and Communications decides there is a bypass to be made around a town or a new corner, some new proposal is made, they call in the local agricultural representative and ask his opinion of these things. This to me, is the way it should be.

In some cases there have been changes made by the Ministry of Transportation and Communications because of recommendations that our ministry staff has made. It is not going to be possible, forever and a day, to preserve every acre of agricultural land, but I think we should be doing what we can to preserve as much of it as we possibly can. I think this is being achieved with a reasonable degree of success.

Mr. Gaunt: I don’t want to open up the whole area of land-use planning again, because we’ve gone over this matter, and I really don’t want to engage in further debate on it. Suffice it to say that I’m wondering if this particular branch is going to have any kind of research thrust as an integral part of its operation.

For instance, I’m told that every time our population jumps by 1,000, between 300 and 1,200 acres are converted to urban use. Apartments must be built, roads are needed, and so forth. It’s obvious that some types of urban use are more destructive of land than others.

In other words, there are some types of urban use, or some types of development that use very few acres of land. There are other types of development that use quite a lot of land. I’m wondering if there is any kind of research going to be undertaken in this particular branch with respect to this kind of thing.

I’m really thinking in terms of a branch which is in possession of all of the facts and is able to give a rather learned opinion with respect to some of these developments and what sort of impact the development will have, not only on agricultural land -- although that’s very important, certainly -- but also in terms of the impact on the community, impact with respect to all of the economic and socio-economic factors in that particular area.

The experts say that by the year 2000 Canada will have at least 35 million people. If we don’t change our patterns of growth, 17.5 million acres in Canada is the most we’re going to have under the plow by the turn of the century. At the worst we’ll only have nine million acres of prime agricultural land left.

I think one of the functions of this particular branch, as I see it, is to engage in this kind of research and support its views by that kind of analysis. I would hope that they’re prepared to do that.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes, that is right, Mr. Chairman, we are. We’ll be working with the University of Guelph and the economic branch of our own ministry to do that very kind of research work. What we’re trying to develop is input capability on these very matters for all ministries of the Ontario government. There will be programme development regarding land-use proposals emanating from this branch.

As I say again, Mr. Chairman, it’s just in the structural stage today. We don’t have all the bodies in place yet. I hope it will have major impact, because I think it’s a very necessary function; and perhaps it’s one we should have had earlier. There weren’t very many people very much interested in land-use up until mid-1973. Now it’s become something we should have done yesterday.

So it’s something that we have to look at. I think we have to do what we can to preserve wherever possible land that’s of value, particularly where the appropriate heat units are located for certain types of agricultural production, which just cannot be produced in other parts of Canada. That’s the real key to the issue, as far as I can see.

Mr. Chairman: Shall this section on food land development carry?

Continuing with the advisory services; home economics, any comments? The hon. member for Huron.

Mr. J. Riddell (Huron): Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to say to the minister that I think the home economics branch and the extension branch have been two of the strong arms of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. I certainly think we should be paying tribute to such people as Helen McKercher, Art Bennett and Ken Lantz, who have done a tremendous job with these particular branches.

I would think, Mr. Minister, that when the government changes in the next election people like this are going to have to be kept on.

Mr. P. Taylor (Carleton East): We will see to it. What is he going to do with the others?

Mr. Riddell: Now I would just like to say that, speaking for Huron, it is interesting to note that we are going to have something like 400 agricultural projects this year and we are going to have 1,100 home-making projects, although the garden club project they tell me is going to be decreased this year to something in the neighbourhood of 600 projects. This is still very creditable. But the unfortunate part of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, as compared to the Ministry of Education, is that they don’t quite get the same amount of money in the Ministry of Agriculture and Food as they do in the Ministry of Education to carry on some of these very worthwhile projects.

I am inclined to think that as far as education is concerned, some of these young people are gaining a lot more out of the extension branch and the home economics branch than they are in some of our schools, particularly when it comes down to matters of agriculture. I am just wondering if you can foresee the day when maybe we can make a little more money available to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food in connection with these two branches -- home economies and extension -- so they can continue to carry on the good work and perhaps expand in some of the projects they are carrying out.

You know, Mr. Minister, I am inclined to think there have been a lot of great men connected with the extension branch at one time.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Quite right.

Mr. Riddell: We certainly want to provide all the incentive we can to have these great people continue on.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Huron-Bruce.

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Chairman, I just want to --

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I would just like to make a comment, if I might. After the next election I am quite sure they will all be here, just as they have always been in the past. There is no doubt about that whatever.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Huron-Bruce.

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Chairman, I just want to echo what the member for Huron has said with respect to the home economics branch and the extension branch. I think these are two branches in the ministry that have done an outstanding job over the years. I don’t really have much more to say about this. Helen McKercher used to write my speeches for this particular section, but this year she said she was too busy --

Hon. Mr. Stewart: For goodness sake.

Mr. Gaunt: -- so I guess I am just going to have to wing it on my own.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I wondered what was wrong tonight.

Mr. Gaunt: In any case, I certainly concur with the comments that have been made.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: So do I, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Shall this section carry, home economics? Carried. Are there any comments on the livestock section of this item?

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Meanwhile back at the barn.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Huron-Bruce.

Mr. Gaunt: This particular matter seems to be a recurring problem. We’ve talked about it before in these estimates. It has to do with the weighing of livestock. It has been a concern of long standing for livestock men that the weighing procedures be adequate and that proper inspection be undertaken.

I think it’s a case of seeking greater supervision of the weighing procedures. I know that the Ontario Beef Improvement Association has been pushing for this kind of thing, but so far nothing of any real import has happened in this respect.

The packing plants, I think, are pretty well left on their own in this connection. The Beef Improvement Association have brought forward resolutions, I believe almost year after year, on this particular matter. I’m wondering if there’s any way in which the ministry here feels it can undertake a programme where inspectors can go around and inspect these scales in strict accordance with weights and measures standards. I'm wondering if your ministry, in conjunction with the Canada Department of Agriculture, couldn’t undertake this kind of programme. Weights and measures come under the federal government, and I can see why your ministry shouldn’t be doing it all on its own.

At the same time, the Beef Cattle Marketing Act and the regulations thereunder apply to carcass weighing. I’m wondering if the ministry has considered this alternative? I’m sure you have; and if so is there any thought being given to its implementation?

Hon Mr. Stewart: Yes, we’ve considered it, Mr. Chairman. The OBIA have, as my friend suggests, made consistent recommendations to us that they want some independent person stationed at all the community sales doing the weighing and paid for by our ministry. There’s no possible way we can do that for one segment of the economy; otherwise we’ll have to have a weighman at every milk receiving station in the province, every fruit and vegetable receiving station and every hog receiving station. It would just go on ad infinitum. We have suggested to the OBIA that if they paid for the people we’d be glad to appoint them. They would have the status of government inspectors or government weighmen, but they would be paid by the OBIA if this is required; otherwise there’s no possible way we could do it within reason at all.

The proposal is being discussed now with the federal people. Of course, weights and measures come under the federal Weights and Measures Act. They have very severe inspection of these scales and it’s carried out on a regular basis. The federal staff in the respective packing plants, as I understand it, do take a look at the scales, certainly in the Ontario-inspected plants. I would say there’s fairly good relationship there. It’s proposed that the weight for all carcasses graded be shown on the certificate. That just applies to those carcasses sold on a dressed-weight basis, those cattle. I am given to understand that discussions are taking place to standardize this across Canada with the same degree of supervision of weights by the federal inspectors. Those discussions are under way now with the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association, and I believe with the various livestock branches across Canada, with the Canada Department of Agriculture and with the weights and measures branch to see what can be done to standardize dressing procedures and weights and what the indication should be on the certificates.

Mr. Chairman: Does the livestock section carry? No.

Mr. Gaunt: The dead stock removal programme has fallen on rocky times, I’m given to understand. The prices for hides and the expenses incurred in this kind of operation have meant that it’s simply unprofitable for these people to go around and pick up dead animals on the farms. I suppose one could deal with this under the veterinary section. It doesn’t matter to me which branch we --

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I think we should, because it does come under the regulatory section of that service.

Mr. Gaunt: I can deal with it at that time then.

Mr. Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to raise another matter in regard to the livestock section. It has to do with the problems that have arisen in regard to Bill 93, the check-off bill as it applies to wool. I know some of these problems certainly don’t rest at the doorstep of the minister. Some of them have to do with the internal operations of the sheep growers and sheep association. They just don’t seem to be able to come to any agreement as to what they want to do. There’s no unanimous voice within their organization, and I know that makes it particularly difficult for the minister to resolve this problem.

The only thing that makes me wonder about the situation and that strikes me immediately about it, is the fact that under the legislation as it presently stands, the check-off applies only on wool; that’s the first point of contention.

The second point of contention is that if in fact any of those wool growers ask for their check-off money back then they are automatically disbarred from the association. I think that point is particularly unfair, and I really can’t understand why the association pursues that course of action. It seems to me that the check-off is voluntary, and being voluntary it’s the right of any wool grower to write in and ask for his money back in the same manner as a beef producer who wants his check-off back. He doesn’t waive his membership in the organization simply because he writes in and wants his money back. I think that point is particularly unfair, and I believe that when the sheep association sits down and thinks about it, they will change their mind on that.

The other thing that I want to mention in connection with this is the matter of the check-off being applied only on wool. I think there was some suggestion it was going to be very difficult to apply it on lambs because of the difficulties in sorting out the private treaty sales and so on. There are many different avenues through which lamb is marketed and it was felt, I guess, that it would be rather difficult to apply it on lamb. So the easier course was taken in applying it on wool.

When we look around, however, Saskatchewan has a 25 cent per head levy on lamb and a one cent per pound levy on wool; Alberta has a 25 cent per head levy on lamb and one cent per pound levy on wool; the United States has a levy on wool and lamb. So it’s certainly not impossible to do.

As a matter of fact, I understand it has been done quite successfully in those jurisdictions which I have mentioned. It gives the Sheep Growers Association a good base and a good source of revenue to carry on the programmes they feel they should in the best interest of the sheep and wool growers of their respective jurisdictions. The thing about applying it only to wool is that wool is really the most depressed segment of the sheep industry. Wool growers, when compared with the barbecue lamb trade and the mutton trade, are faring the worst of the lot economically. So it would seem it’s a little unfair in that respect.

I notice that some of the prices for wool over the past few years are reasonably low. Twenty-two cents a pound in 1968, 21 cents in 1969, 19 cents in 1970, 15 cents in 1971. A five-cent levy would mean the wool growers would be contributing one third of their total revenue by way of levy. I think that would be a little steep.

The price was 28 cents in 1972 and in 1973 it was 79 cents. That was on account of the Japanese trade. The Japanese buyers came into the market and bought up large amounts of wool. Consequently the price shot up. In 1974 it dropped back, however, because the Japanese were out of the market; it came back to the 25 cent level.

I raise those points with the minister. I know he’s had the sheep growers in for a meeting and these things were discussed. It seems to me it would be much fairer if it were applied on wool and lamb and in that way all segments of the sheep industry would be contributing; as they should, because they’re all going to benefit.

The other part about asking for the refund of the levy and in doing so waiving membership in the organization, I think is quite arbitrary. I would hope that wouldn’t be pursued.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Kent.

Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent): Mr. Chairman, before the minister answers the member for Huron-Bruce, I would like to bring to his attention the complaints I have had from the sheep breeders in my part of the province. I was here when this bill was passed. Not being familiar with the sheep industry myself, it seems the burden has fallen on the ones who clip the sheep.

The member for Huron-Bruce has brought to your attention the price of wool over the last number of years; five-cents-a-pound check-off seems to be quite a burden when there is in general about 18 pounds to the fleece.

Those sheep producers who go west and buy these sheep, bring them back here and feed them, get off scot-free, which doesn’t leave a good feeling among the Sheep Breeders Association membership. As the member for Huron-Bruce says, if they ask for the return of the check-off, they’re waiving their rights in the association.

I would think it would be a lot fairer for the mutton, and lamb producer as well as the wool producer to contribute to this association because both benefit a great deal from this check-off. It should be on the lamb as on the wool, with the right to apply for a refund if the producers wish.

At present some of them get off scot-free. They bring in many carloads of lamb and they have no check-off. I hope the minister will correct me if I am wrong, but this is the way I understand it.

I hope the minister will look at this in a little different light than he did when we passed the bill. As I say, I wasn’t familiar with the sheep industry at that time and it looked as if we let the producers of mutton off scot-free. So I hope the minister will outline what he feels about that.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Huron.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to add to what’s already been said. It’s not hard to understand why the check-off is on wool, because I think we have only in the neighbourhood of two or three markets for wool, whereas a lot of lambs are sold by private treaty to ethnic groups; I am talking about hot-house lambs now, and I suppose it would be difficult to charge a levy on lambs going for this purpose.

I think we should get a little serious about the sheep business in Ontario, or in Canada for that matter. It seems to me that there is something less than a million sheep shorn in Canada, which shows that sheep probably play a very insignificant part of our overall livestock production. But, still and all, I would hate to think the day will come when we will rely completely on imports of lamb and wool.

It has been brought to my attention by sheep producers in relatively recent times -- one chap had his sheep shorn and he offered to give the sheep shearer the wool for the price of shearing the sheep. The sheep-shearer said: “Nothing doing, I don’t want to have any part of it.”

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I’ve shorn sheep like that too.

Mr. Riddell: There was another instance brought forth by my colleague here where he sold his wool and they wrote him back and asked him to pay an additional $34 for the shipping charges.

So I think we had better start thinking rather seriously about this wool business in Ontario. I am wondering if the minister foresees the day when maybe we are going to have to subsidize the price of wool to create an incentive for these farmers to stay in the sheep business.

I am also wondering if the minister could comment on whether the Ontario wool growers’ co-operative lost in the neighbourhood of $200,000 in its last year of operation, and was some of that due to the $17,000 which I think it had invested in the wool plant in New Brunswick that went bankrupt? Did the Ontario wool growers’ co-operative lose $200,000 in its last year of operation? It seems to me I read this someplace, and I am just wondering if the minister could comment.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I could say no to that. I have never heard before of any losses the Canadian co-operative wool growers have had.

The matter of check-off on wool seemingly is very difficult to resolve. We met with the sheep producers’ association executive on April 18 and discussed with them the point about a producer making application for his refund and then being denied the right to continue membership in the association, which seemed to me to be very far-reaching and perhaps just a bit out of character with what we normally expect to do in those kind of voluntary check-off plans.

I thought they were going to send us a letter giving us an indication they would introduce a motion at the next annual meeting which would change that part of their constitution so that if a member made application for a refund of the check-off, he wouldn’t automatically be denied membership in the association. We said if they would do that then we would see our way clear to go ahead and introduce the regulation which would provide the three-cent levy -- it’s not a five-cent levy; it’s a three-cent levy.

But we haven’t heard a word from them; today is May 12, which is almost a month later, and we haven’t heard a word. I find it difficult to make any decision at all on this thing.

I agree with my friends opposite. We would all agree that if we could make some sort of a levy on lamb -- perhaps on wool as well, but at least on lamb -- as some of the jurisdictions have done, it might be a more fair method of financing their own association. On the other hand, they all agreed that it would be virtually impossible to do that in the Province of Ontario because of the nature of the lamb trade we have here.

My friend from Kent makes reference to the number of lambs that come in from western Canada as feeder lambs, but that business has dropped enormously in the last few years. The sheep population of western Canada is not expanding any more than it is anywhere else, and more lambs apparently are being directly fed out there than used to be the case. There are comparatively few lambs, we understand, coming into Ontario today to be fed out as feeder lambs and then go on to the trade.

The big movement here, of course, is the term used by the member for Huron -- “hot house lambs”. They are sold direct to the people who buy them right at the door and are not marketed through the central markets or community sales. The association for this reason felt that it would be virtually impossible to implement a programme that would be satisfactory in making the collections on a fair and equitable basis.

I assume the reason we have not heard from the association is that they are having second thoughts about it. In the meantime, we have no notion of introducing the regulation. It will be held in abeyance until the matter is satisfactorily resolved. There is no easy answer to it, apparently.

Admittedly wool is at a depressed price at present. Whether it will rejuvenate in price in the next few months or not nobody knows. Certainly lamb itself is selling at a very acceptable figure, generally speaking, and I believe breeding stock is selling at a good figure as well.

So, Mr. Chairman, I’m afraid I don’t have any other answer than that. I simply tell you the facts as we see them and leave it at that for the time being.

Mr. Chairman: Shall this item carry? Carried. Any other member with any item on vote 1702?

Mr. Gaunt: On the soils and crop item, Mr. Chairman, I notice the government gives a grant of $5,000 to the Ontario Soil Crop Improvement Association. As I recall it, that is a fairly standard grant. I believe that has been the amount of the grant over the past number of years.

I am wondering if the minister has given any consideration to adjusting that grant upward in view of the fact that the Soil and Crop Association does some outstanding work in the field of crop research and experimental plots having to do with various applications of pesticides and insecticides and so on.

This is work that is certainly backed up and substantiated by the University of Guelph, but I am wondering that in view of the inflationary times we are all experiencing, whether or not the Soil and Crop Association has asked for more than $5,000, and if in fact the government is prepared to give them any more?

Hon Mr. Stewart: The answer is no, we have not been asked. Frankly, I am not aware that the Soil and Crop Improvement Association is in any kind of financial distress. I think they adjusted their membership fees a year or so ago and as far as I know there is no problem there.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Huron.

Mr. Riddell: Yes, Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that in a speech the minister made the other day at the Centralia graduation he indicated there was going to be more research done in white bean production in the Centralia area. I wonder if you could elaborate on that a little, and also indicate to us what you think this bean market is going to do in the next year or two. This year we are in a very unusual position with an exceptional, we might even say record, production of white beans of No. 1 quality. The crop will result in a total production of two million cwt, I believe, compared to 1973 when it was a little over 1½ million cwt. Coupled with the large production in Ontario, Michigan also finds itself with a potential carryover of one million cwt of white beans.

This large carryover and large availability of beans in the world has greatly depressed the market to the point where the Ontario Bean Producers Marketing Board is presently selling beans for export at $12 fob the plant. This is quite a contrast to last year when we were exporting beans at $50. That might be an exceptionally high price, I grant you that, but we are down to the point now that they are being sold at $12.

I am wondering if the minister knows what opportunity there might be to move additional beans into another kind of a market, because at $12 the bean producers are going to lose their shirts. I wonder if this is the reason the minister is going to spend more money on research on white beans in Centralia; or just what is his purpose in researching white bean production when we find we are in rather drastic straits at the present time with surplus beans and a low price?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I think there is a very good reason of justification for researching white beans at Centralia and I make no apologies to my friend from Huron or anybody else. We know what happened to white bean production in Kent county. It has been drastically reduced because ozone fallout from emissions from across the lakes and other industrial plants in southwestern Ontario have adversely affected it.

As I said at Centralia the other day, we don’t want to have a repeat of what happened in 1972 or 1973 -- I can’t remember the date, I think it was 1972 -- when the ozone fallout even affected the beans in Huron, Middlesex and Perth, in a triangular area which extended from Chatham as far as Clinton and from Clinton across to Tillsonburg, I think, on the other side. It was a very difficult situation and it did cause some drop in productivity.

We think we have to do some research work there. There is a parcel of land of about 20 acres on the old air force base which was not disturbed at the time the aerodrome was created at the time of World War 2. The land is perhaps as fine a piece of land as can be found in Huron county. It is part of an old farm and is in a good state, so it will lend itself well to research plots.

We are going to test varieties. We are going to test chemical control, crop rotation and all this kind of thing in a programme to be of assistance and information to the bean growers of that part of the Province of Ontario. That is now the capital of bean production for all Ontario; Huron and Perth counties.

With regard to the price future, my friend makes reference to $50 prices. There were precious few beans sold at $50. The average price for the 1973 crop was $27. and that came about largely because of the very small bean crop in the United States and the demand from markets normally supplied by United States beans falling to Ontario producers. In this present year, heaven only knows what the price will be; I don’t know. There is an enormous crop of beans in the United States.

Perhaps one of the best illustrations of price incentive to over-productivity was demonstrated last year with the 1974 crop of white beans. The acreage was phenomenally higher both in Canada and the United States. The United States had its biggest crop in all recorded history; the biggest acreage and the best crop. There is a substantial carryover of beans but I would say that the Ontario Food Council and trade missions have already arranged for the Ontario Bean Producers Marketing Board to introduce beans into at least 12 countries where they had not sold before, and we hope to add another three. This will, perhaps, be about 15 new markets that have been opened up in order to try and move this enormous surplus of beans appearing on the North American market.

Now we are hopeful that by the time the next crop comes around they are going to be moved, but they certainly are not going to move at anything like the $27 figure.

My parliamentary assistant tells me that some beans have already been sold in the $24 range, but they expect it will be somewhere around $12. They are selling at that now; so he thinks the average will be above it.

Frankly, I think it’s too early to predict. There are too many beans yet to be sold to know really what will happen. But I don’t think there is any magic about it. It’s just a matter of supply of beans; and who knows what this year’s crop will be like.

We understand there is likely to be a decrease in planted acreage this year in both Canada and the United States, in comparison with last year. But we really won’t know until the crops are planted, because weather conditions sometimes change farmers’ plans. They’ll plant beans sometimes when they don’t get a chance to plant something else. There is a certain degree of flexibility that is hard to predict in that regard.

Mr. Riddell: Yes, well that price of $50 is one that came directly from the manager of the Ontario Bean Producers Marketing Board, so it’s not a price I just pulled out of the air.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: We realize that. As I said, there were very few that were sold at that price.

Mr. Riddell: I am pleased to see that you are going to research white bean production in the area which I represent, but it seems rather ironical to me that we have one arm of government that is pushing to establish a nuclear development plant in Huron and --

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I want to challenge my hon. friend on that. You name the ministry that is pushing for a nuclear development plant in Huron. You name the ministry.

Mr. Riddell: Ontario Hydro, in conjunction with the Minister of Energy --

Hon. Mr. Stewart: They are not pushing it; they are not pushing it. Can you tell me where and what ministry of government is pushing it? You said there was a department of government pushing a nuclear development plant in Huron. You name the department.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): You are responsible.

Mr. Riddell: I am just telling you that Ontario Hydro have it on their grid plan.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): That’s right.

Mr. Riddell: And the Minister of Energy (Mr. Timbrell) is certainly going to support them; and I am just asking that we get --

Hon. Mr. Stewart: No. He is not supporting them, Mr. Chairman. And my hon. friend knows full well that the Porter commission is appointed to look into this whole deal as far as where the future of Hydro is going to be.

Mr. Riddell: Well, we are glad to hear that.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: As to whether it is going to be located there or somewhere else, no decision has been made whatsoever under any circumstances.

Mr. Riddell: I am pleased to hear that.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: What is the purpose of appointing the Porter commission if that were a fixed thing?

Mr. Riddell: I am pleased to hear that.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: My hon. friend knows better than that.

Mr. Riddell: I am pleased to hear that then, and I hope --

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Just like the regional government and the by-election in Huron. Same deal, the very same.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Ruston: The election campaign is now on.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: If the member wants to drag out red herrings, go right ahead. That’s typical of what the hon. member has been doing.

Interjections by bon. members.

Mr. Riddell: We were discussing white beans; I don’t know how regional government came into it.

Mr. Chairman: Well the member for Huron dragged it in himself.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: The same way as you brought in the other items. You twist and warp the two in every way possible.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please, order.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Riddell: On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Chairman, did you say I was the one who brought in regional government into this conversation?

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): It is the minister.

Mr. Chairman: A point of personal privilege, you haven’t got a point of personal privilege, but --

Interjection by hon. member.

Mr. Riddell: I didn’t mention regional government at all.

Mr. Chairman: It was you who brought in --

An hon. member: He said you were worse.

Mr. Chairman: No, he brought Ontario Hydro into the argument and the minister defended it. If you’ll both get back to item 2, advisory services, we’ll carry on with the debate.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Riddell: So we have your assurance then that you will make every endeavour to stop the development of a nuclear plant if it looks as if it is going to have a deteriorating effect on Huron county.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Huron has to be fair. You rose on a point of personal privilege. What has the nuclear power plant got to do with these estimates?

An hon. member: You just got through the estimates.

Mr. Chairman: Nothing whatsoever. You are out of order.

Mr. Riddell: It certainly has.

Mr. Chairman: You are out of order.

Mr. Riddell: It will destroy the white bean production if we allow it to continue.

Mr. Chairman: You are out of order.

An hon. member: What have you got against white beans, Mr. Chairman?

An hon. member: You ought to know what you are doing there, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Ruston: You like to hear good reports.

Mr. Chairman: Shall item 2 carry? Carried.

Item 3, crop insurance; the hon. member for Huron-Bruce.

Mr. Ruston: Don’t let him push it through.

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Chairman, I don’t want to engage in any red herrings, but I just want to talk about the white beans for a moment. As I understand it, the food council is very actively engaged at the moment in promoting white beans. They have already done so in 12 countries and they are working on an additional three countries which might perhaps buy some of our surplus. Is that the correct interpretation?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: That is the way I understand it.

Mr. Gaunt: I am wondering if the ministry is thinking about any further programmes over and above this kind of approach. I am thinking in terms of what you did last year with respect to the split beans -- you promoted these split beans to underdeveloped countries at greatly reduced prices. I think we subsidized the entire programme, if I recall correctly.

I am wondering if there is any merit -- and I believe there is -- in undertaking a similar programme again, because I am sure that the protein is very much welcomed by those countries and very worthwhile. In view of the fact that we do have a tremendous surplus of beans, as has been indicated the record crop in the United States, a good crop here and the market simply flooded, I think it would be a great undertaking if we could repeat the same programme we did last year with respect to these split beans.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, that’s a good suggestion. If my hon. friend would just talk to his friends in Ottawa in connection with that $280 million they are putting up in food aid programmes, let’s sell them some Ontario white beans. We see no reason why they shouldn’t be buying the most perfect food there could be outside of skim milk powder; and we’ve got both those commodities right here. We are making approaches through the White Bean Marketing Board to Ottawa to see if they’ll use some of that $280 million to purchase some of those white beans in the food aid programme. I think it’s a great idea.

Mr. Chairman: Shall item 2 carry?

Mr. Gaunt: No. In this connection, white beans are certainly a very important crop in the Huron-Middlesex-Oxford area, and in part of Elgin as well. I think it’s very important that the Ministry of Agriculture and Food make a submission to the Porter commission saying that in their view it would be disastrous to the white bean industry in that part of the country if a nuclear power plant were built on Lake Huron near Blake in Huron County. I hope the ministry would do that. I think that would be a very useful thing to do and time well spent as far you are concerned and as far as the farmers are concerned.

Mr. Chairman: Shall item 2 carry? Carried. Item 3, crop insurance.

Mr. Spence: We have missed veterinarians.

Mr. Chairman: We haven’t missed it unless you want to carry item 2. If you want to speak on item 2, Veterinarians, why go right ahead.

Mr. Spence: I want to bring to the attention of the minister the shortage of veterinarians in different parts of the province. Ontario Federation of Agriculture members have brought it to my attention, and even suggested that I suggest to the minister we should have courses in our agricultural colleges. They are that concerned.

I wonder what the outlook is this year, Mr. Minister, for the graduation of veterinarians from the college at Guelph. Will there be more available next year or the year after? It is a concern of a number of livestock farmers in our part of the province.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: There is no question that it is a concern in areas where livestock population is not as predominant as it is in other areas of the province.

We did graduate a class of animal health technologists from Centralia just the other day, and they don’t all have jobs yet. I understand that even some of the vet graduates this year are still looking for jobs.

In areas such as those mentioned by my friend, as is the case where he comes from, where cash cropping is the predominant part of the industry, it is more difficult to attract a veterinarian there because the livestock is so sparse. It does create a problem.

We have a study of veterinary services to the livestock industry of Ontario going on now, and we hope to have that report sometime within the next few months. It’s a very thorough study and maybe there will be some recommendations there that we can act on to take care of situations such as that.

With regard to short courses, we have had a short course at Ridgetown in connection with the Ridgetown vet lab with veterinarians participating in animal health courses for the local people who could come in and take that kind of short course. Frankly, I think that’s a good idea. I would like to see a lot more of that done, because it is sometimes impossible to get a vet when you want one and there are some things that the farmer could do himself. The new technology and new methods would be useful if he could be updated in them in sort of an in-training course.

Mr. Spence: How long are these courses, Mr. Minister?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Three days to a week, concentrated.

Mr. Chairman: Is item 2 carried?

Mr. Gaunt: While we are on veterinary services, I want to raise the matter of dead stock removal. I have mentioned it before, but it remains to be a problem because the prices being received by the dead stock removal people for the hides and the byproducts are very depressed and consequently they are not able to pay any price at all to the farmers. As a matter of fact, it is the reverse now; the farmers have to pay the dead stock removal people for picking up the animals. I think it is in the neighbourhood of $2 to $5.

I suspect the farmers in some cases are carting their animals back to the bush, particularly in the wintertime, and hoping that nobody will find them there, because they just aren’t prepared to pay to have the animals picked up. Of course, it is not legal and they shouldn’t be doing that but I suspect it is happening because of the economics of the situation.

I believe the farmer is supposed to bury within 48 hours any dead animal that happens to reside on his property. If he doesn’t do it then he is in contravention of the Act. It seems to me that it would be a better situation if the tripe and so on -- the byproducts that these people sell -- were selling at better prices. Here again, it’s a case of oversupply; there is just too much of it on the market. I guess supply and demand still rules, at least in a lot of cases, and that’s the situation as of the moment.

I know the dead stock removal people have been in to talk with the minister or his officials about this problem, but I don’t know whether there is any solution. I guess it’s more a matter of time than anything else to have the market situation return to the point where there is a demand for this kind of thing. If there is, and the surplus disappears, then the price naturally will move up.

I wonder if there is any possibility of compensation or perhaps reimbursement for farmers who do have to pay for the removal of dead animals. They have suffered the loss of the animal. It hurts even more when you have to pay for its removal. Is any thought being given to some type of stimulus to the dead stock removal industry, or of reimbursement to the farmer who has to pay for his animal to be picked up?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: There is no question, Mr. Chairman, it’s a real problem and, as my hon. friend said, it is very complex. There is no easy answer for it. We haven’t found any. I suppose it’s partially associated with the enormous increase in the kill of livestock in Canada and the United States over the last year. We have increased our kill of cattle in Canada by about 20,000 head a week over the previous few years in the last six months. The United States figure is even higher than that in a percentage way. That offal has to be disposed of. There’s virtually little or no market for the product of many of these dead stock collection services other than to send them through rendering plants. That is a very low income, comparatively speaking, for what they have normally been receiving. They have provided a very useful service.

An hon. member: Still do.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I know in our community we are having to pay for the pickup. I look upon it as being cheaper to pay the person to pick it up than to bring somebody in with a back hoe to dig a hole to bury the animal. I think that’s the decision the farmers have to make. As my friend said, it is illegal to leave dead animals lying out.

Whether or not there will come a time when there has to be greater enforcement, I don’t know. I suppose weather and time will dictate that to some degree. In the meantime, it’s a serious situation for which there is no easy answer.

Mr. Chairman: Does any other member have any comments on item 2? Does item 2 carry?

Item 3, crop insurance.

Mr. Spence: Mr. Chairman, I see your subsidy payment this year was $5,000,916. Was that right?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes.

Mr. Spence: There must have been a tremendous loss. Could the minister inform us if more crop insurance is being sold to the farmers? Have the farmers accepted it more and more each year? How many more farmers this past year have been using or buying crop insurance?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: This is an estimate of the subsidy payments by the federal government which pays 50 per cent of the crop insurance premium for 1975-1976 crop year. This is an estimate.

Mr. Spence: The share of the provincial government will be $5,000,916 too?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: This is the federal subsidy; this is 50 per cent of the premium. You pay it, and then get it back. The farmer pays the same amount. That’s right. The province pays the total administration which would be the $1,598,000. That would be our input. The feds pay half of the premium, and the farmer pays the other half. Now, that’s an estimate; we are not sure whether that’s accurate or not. It is an estimate.

Mr. Chairman: Any other comments on crop insurance, item 3?

Item 4.

Mr. Gaunt: I have two questions with respect to item 4, Mr. Chairman. The first one has to do with the $10 million capital grants.

As I remember it, the minister came into the House one day and said we must put a ceiling on the capital grants programme. He said we will only pay out the allotted $10 million during the fiscal year and if there are applications that can’t be processed during that fiscal year, they will be paid in the next fiscal year. That was altered, I believe, last year. The minister said we will pay all of the claims that come to us during that fiscal year.

I wonder whether he feels $10 million for 1975-1976 is sufficient to meet all the applications, or are we going to be confronted with the same kind of situation all over again?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: It is very difficult, Mr. Chairman. We won’t really know how many applications there will be for capital grants.

It’s quite true, as my hon. friend suggested, we have taken that position before. But when there were increases in applications made over and beyond the $10 million we have set aside, we were able to find sufficient moneys that had not been spent in some other area, so that when we put them all together within the ministry we were able to complete the payments on the capital grants programme. I think it’s better to do that than to carry them over into next year.

Last year, in 1974-1975, we paid out just under $16 million. The first year or two the programme started off with $3 million or $4 million. Then it gradually went up quite high and now it’s settled back to about $16 million.

But we’ll put in whatever is there and if there are more applications we will do our best to find the money within the ministry in some other areas that might not all be used in specific votes. We’ll simply make application to Management Board to transfer it in there and pay for it if we can. Better to do that than to have the money sit there and not be paid out to the farmers, we think.

Mr. Gaunt: The minister, I gather, feels that the zenith has been reached with respect to capital grants.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes I do. But I may be surprised.

Mr. Gaunt: So it could very well fall back to $15 million or $14 million this year.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: It could, yes. Or $10 million.

Mr. Gaunt: The other point I was inquiring about -- I think I know the answer but I just want to verify it -- is the Ontario Junior Farmer Establishment Loan Corp. deficit for 1975-1976 --

Mr. Chairman: Before we go on to that, shall all other items carry prior to this particular item, Ontario Junior Farmers? Anybody want to speak on any other item?

Mr. Riddell: I would like to, Mr. Chairman. I suppose it could fall under farming cum stabilization. Regarding the recently announced Ontario Young Farmers’ Loan Programme, have any of your officials have discussed --

Mr. Chairman: Is that the Ontario Junior Farmer Establishment Loan Corp.?

Mr. Riddell: It is this new plan, recently announced -- this new young farmers’ loan programme. It would come under this item, wouldn’t it?

Mr. Chairman: It could very well. But have all the other items previous to this been passed?

Mr. Ruston: I don’t know where it’s in here. Agricultural development in northern Ontario; it might be in that.

Mr. Riddell: It is under assistance to primary food production.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: It is all right in this vote.

Mr. Chairman: Okay, all other items down to Ontario Junior Farmer Establishment Loan Corp.?

Mr. Ruston: No.

Mr. Stokes: No way.

Mr. Chairman: What do you want to talk on before this?

Mr. Stokes: Yes, I want to find out.

Mr. Riddell: This has nothing to do, Mr. Chairman, with Ontario Junior Farmer Establishment Loan Corp. It’s assistance to the farmers that the minister recently announced with this Ontario young farmer’s --

Mr. Ruston: Take this all into one vote.

Mr. Chairman: No, we have got to have a little bit of order. You can’t be jockeying back and forward.

Mr. Stokes: Tell him where he talks about it.

Mr. Chairman: What do you want to talk about?

Mr. Stokes: I want to talk about the first item, assistance to primary food production.

Mr. Chairman: That is what we should talk about first then. You have the floor.

Mr. Ruston: He is talking about assistance.

Mr. Riddell: That is what I’m talking about, Mr. Chairman, the point is under assistance to primary food production.

Mr. Stokes: Got to be of assistance.

Mr. Riddell: Let me get along with it.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: The members would all like to talk, but they don’t know what to talk about.

Mr. Riddell: Have your ministry’s officials discussed this loan programme with the bankers? Because with an intermediate type loan the bankers will go along with maybe a five- or six-year plan, but they haven’t been too amenable to a term of 10 years. Further to this, I’m wondering if the province has actually kept pace with other provinces as far as long-term credit is concerned. It is my understanding that most other provinces offer some kind of a long-term credit programme for farmers and the only long-term credit programme for Ontario farmers is the Farm Credit Corp.

I think this is a good programme -- don’t get me wrong -- and I think their interest rates have been quite reasonable. Still and all, your recently announced programme has prime interest rates plus one per cent and I believe prime interest rates are now somewhere between nine and 9½ per cent, which means the farmer is going to have to borrow the money at 10½ per cent interest. With the farmer’s input costs and the price he gets for his product, I question very much whether he is going to be able to generate enough income to make use of that intermediate loan and pay that 10½ per cent interest.

I believe the latest report is that the prime interest rate is going to go up again. Maybe we should be thinking of a subsidised interest rate for farmers considering the present day’s high input costs and low prices for the product. Secondly, maybe we should be thinking of a long-term credit programme so that our farmers will have the same advantage as farmers in other provinces.

Mr. Chairman: I think, Mr. Minister, he is talking about grants re guaranteed bank loans to farmers.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have had discussions with the banks. The programme is all worked out, the forms are now being printed and will be distributed to the local ag reps and to the banks so at the local offices they will know what’s going on. It’s all been cleared with the head offices of the major banks.

The proposal on the subsidized interest rate is interesting, of course, and one would like to be all things to all people. We think there is little to be gained by subsidizing interest rates. For instance, you simply go out and pay a higher price for a commodity if you can get it for a lower rate of interest. That’s a well-known fact.

I think that generally speaking, the concern we have heard expressed regarding farm credit is not the interest rate so much as that the funds are available at a reasonable rate of interest. What we are trying to do is to have the young chap avoid the necessity of having to go to a finance company sometimes for the purchase of equipment, which would be turned over to a finance company to be collected at an interest rate he might not be fully conscious of at the time he made the deal to purchase whatever he was buying. This will provide a source for those young fellows who don’t have the kind of collateral which some established farmers may have.

As we understand it the prime rate today is nine per cent plus one; that’s equivalent to a 10 per cent interest rate. It’s a 10-year loan programme which is an intermediate credit programme and the first two years in some cases -- not all, but in conditional cases -- may require only the payment of interest rather than the payment of interest plus principal. This would apply to a start-up fellow who’s starting off in farming or it might apply to somebody with a beef operation or a beef cow-calf operation who’s having some difficulties right now in consolidating this kind of thing. It should be some help in that particular regard.

There is a variety of programmes. There are as many different types of credit programmes across Canada as there are provinces. Frankly, I think the federal government’s programme is a good programme if it brings forward now the Farm Credit Corp. Act. It’s up to $150,000 on a first mortgage loan to a person under 35 years of age. It seems like an enormous amount of money to start off with but there is a great demand for the programme already, I’m told. I don’t think they’ve struck an interest rate yet that I have heard of. The old loan was at 9¼ per cent. I don’t think there’s an interest rate struck as yet in the new legislation; whether or not it will be that rate I don’t know.

In any event, we think this programme may be a supplement to the federal programme which would help many people who might not be able to use the federal programme to advantage in some cases because of the lack of collateral or a lack of security they might be able to offer. We think the management ability of young people is a great factor which should be taken into consideration in this particular programme.

Mr. Riddell: I think my question, Mr. Chairman, is are the banks willing to go along with this programme? Have they indicated their willingness?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes, it has all been worked out with them and they have agreed to it completely. There may be some individual bankers who are not aware of the programme as yet; I wouldn’t doubt that at all. We worked out these arrangements with the head offices of the banks and it is up to them to work it out with their local branch managers. I don’t know whether or not the information has gone out to them yet; it may not have. Certainly that is the programme.

They won’t accept an application until it has first been completed by the agricultural representative working with the applicant. That application is sent to Toronto to a committee which will review it in the same way as the Industrial Milk Production Incentive Programme does. They will review the loan application and if they approve it it will go back to the applicant and then he can take it to the local bank. We won’t be getting to the local banks until a few weeks down the row. We hope to have the application forms in the hands of the ag reps next week, I think, and from there on in, the procedure will be as I have described it.

I can tell you there is tremendous interest in that programme. I don’t think we have introduced another programme on which I have had as many phone calls to my home -- other members have been telling me the same thing -- or to the offices of the ag reps or to the main office right here in Queen’s Park, concerning the loans and how they will apply. There are many young fellows who have said to me, “This is the best thing you have brought out in a long time.” I hope it will be. That is what its intention was.

Mr. Riddell: I would be inclined to agree, but my concern was, as the minister well knows, some farmers will go to a bank to ask for a farm improvement loan and the banker will be very quick to say, “There is no such thing any longer.” I’m hoping they won’t go to a bank to get this kind of a loan only to be turned down. If the bankers know this is coming, that is fine.

Mr. Spence: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister in regard to this, do loans go over $200,000?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I don’t think I caught the meaning of the question.

Mr. Spence: On the loans to farmers, is there a limit over $200,000?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: No, there is no limit on our loan to the individual farmer. Maybe you are thinking about the federal programme. I think there is a limit of $150,000 on a first mortgage under that programme but there is no limit on ours. It is based on individual requirements, management ability, and ability to pay the loan off over a 10-year period. We don’t want a fellow to get in and hang himself with too much credit. On the other hand I think there have been many operations which would have been better with a little more active credit to help get them established and started. They were running on a shoestring and maybe it wasn’t too good.

Mr. Chairman: Any other questions?

Mr. Riddell: On grants for capital purposes in farm development, are you running into cases where a farmer has received his maximum grant and he puts the farm in his wife’s name so that he can apply for an additional grant? Have you run into this situation?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes, there has been the odd one who has made application for his wife to qualify for a capital grant. We have simply not accepted them. It is not the policy of the government to do that. There have been very few.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Thunder Bay.

Mr. Stokes: Yes, I want to question one item, Mr. Chairman. The $210,000 agricultural development in northern Ontario: Could the minister give me a breakdown of that so I can see where it is being spent?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes. It was $210,000 and that has just been doubled to $420,000. What district does the member represent?

Mr. Stokes: Thunder Bay.

Mr. Cassidy: The great agricultural riding.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Thunder Bay, $28,689.65.

Mr. Stokes: What is it going to be spent on?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: That is left to the individual committee to make its own determination. It can be used for seed; fertilizer; chemicals; sometimes they buy a chemical distributor, a fertilizer spreader, this kind of thing. Sometimes they buy a sprayer for spraying pesticides.

Mr. Stokes: For joint use?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: For joint use. There’s one deal I heard of with a co-op up there. The local committee paid half the price of a distributor and the co-op paid the other half, and it’s for the use of the local farmers in that area. That seemed to me to be a useful thing to do. I think they pay so much an hour, or a day, or maybe a ton -- it’s a pro rata basis anyway -- for the rental of the thing.

That’s typical of what goes on. There’s a whole programme of what they do in here, but that’s generally what it is. The local committee might decide that they were going to subsidize lime or something. The government pays the subsidy on lime, but they might want to add to it or they might want to subsidize fertilizer prices for freight and this kind of thing in there. That’s generally the purpose of the whole thing.

Mr. Stokes: Would that go to subsidizing the cost of hay? A couple of years ago they had a problem, and they had to import it from northeastern Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: No, it wouldn’t.

Mr. Stokes: It wouldn’t?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: No. With the subsidy on that hay deal that applied at Thunder Bay -- and we had another going up in Kenora and Rainy River this last year -- the federal government paid one third, the province paid one third and the farmer paid one third of the cost of moving the hay in. But that was outside and separate from this programme. This is administered by the local producers in the area. They make the decisions as to what they want to do with the money.

Mr. Stokes: And is it provided on a per capita basis?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes, generally it is. They have certain criteria as to who can qualify and who can’t. But they draw up their own rules, and I really don’t know what they are across the province. They could vary from one area to another.

We brought this programme in a number of years ago because I felt that the grants to northern Ontario were really in a straitjacket -- you can do this but thou shalt not do that. So we simply took that straitjacket off and said, “You administer the programme right there.”

The local agricultural representative is the secretary of the committee. He keeps the books and the motions and records the minutes of the meetings they have to make these decisions. But they make their own rules and they try to stick by them. I don’t think they can be all things to all people, but nobody can. I think it’s worked out generally pretty well.

The reason we doubled the grants, quite frankly, was to meet the costs of inflation that has taken place this last year. All these things have gone up in price and we thought it would be useful to the farmers to have that increase. They asked us for it and we simply agreed to it.

Mr. Stokes: It sounds like a good programme. Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Thank you.

Mr. Ferrier: I wonder if I could just ask a question or two on this?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes.

Mr. Ferrier: In doubling the programme are you going to double the allotment for each agricultural district?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes.

Mr. Ferrier: I know the farmers in my riding were very concerned they had to do this, but I’m pleased to see that you’ve responded.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes. What district do you represent?

Mr. Ferrier: South Cochrane.

Mr. Cassidy: Another great agricultural riding.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Cochrane South?

Mr. Ferrier: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Last year your people got just under $10,000, and it will be doubled this year. Each one of them will be doubled.

Mr. Ferrier: I am glad to see that.

Mr. Cassidy: How much did my riding get last time?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I’ll tell you, I don’t think the hon. member has anything -- they don’t need any fertilizer in the area he represents. He provides it.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Ruston: Do you mean Toronto Island or Ottawa Centre?

An hon. member: You walked into that one.

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I want to point out to the minister that we have one of the finest farms in my riding, as of two weeks ago when the redistribution Act was proclaimed. The central experimental farm is now a part of Ottawa Centre, and I propose to become an expert in agricultural problems as a result.

Mr. Chairman: I am sure the minister will look after you. Any other member wish to speak on item 4?

Mr. B. Gilbertson (Algoma): Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Gaunt: On the farmers’ loan corporation deficit for 1975-1976. As I indicated to the minister, I think I know what this is, but I just want it confirmed. This is the deficit incurred through the borrowing of the differential in the interest rate? I presume that’s what this figure represents.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes, that’s right.

Mr. Gaunt: That was the case before, and I presume it still applies.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is quite right. The figure shown here is the subsidy on the interest rates of four and five per cent on $70 million or $75 million in round figures. It’s still out on those loans to junior farmers across Ontario. We have to pay the difference between what the government pays for money and what the farmer pays us. That’s the reason the subsidy is in there.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Algoma. Which item are you on?

Mr. Gilbertson: I might say that I am very pleased with the minister doubling the grant for the Algoma riding --

Mr. Gaunt: We passed that one.

Mr. Riddell: That vote was passed.

Mr. Gilbertson: I know that Algoma stockyards in Thessalon have spent considerable money to rebuild and renew their buildings and they are under financial pressure as a result of cattle prices and everything else. I was wondering if there is any way that this committee can use some of that money to alleviate the pressure on them as a result of the money that they have spent. Can any of this money be used for that purpose or has it to go specifically for what is mentioned?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the concern and sympathize with my friend for Algoma concerning the Thessalon stockyards. It is probably one of the finest sale yards in northern Ontario. Unfortunately the market fell apart last year, and I know the returns weren’t everything they ought to have been.

I would like to suggest to him -- and I appreciate the fact that he has thanked us for the doubling of the grants; the grant to Algoma last year was just under $18,000, and it will be $36,000 this year -- that, frankly, I would like to see that go directly to the farmers involved, because their costs are very high.

As for the cost of the sale yards improvements, that was covered by an ARDA grant. Surely there is a way that we can work out -- we are certainly not going to push anybody, and I am sure the federal government isn’t either, because it has got a share in that ARDA grant as well for the improvements that were made at Thessalon yards. Nobody is going to get excited about that; and we will work it out for the farmers of the north. I just wouldn’t like to see that money taken away from the farmers for another purpose for which they really are not responsible.

Mr. Gilbertson: Thank you, Mr. Minister. I appreciate that. I know this is of concern to the beef producers up there.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Kent.

Mr. Spence: Under this item, grants under the Drainage Act are estimated at $2.5 million. Before the dinner hour I asked the minister whether he was going to consider a bill on the report of the select committee on land drainage. The minister said it would be ready in about two weeks. Regarding the $2.5 million, is some of that money to take care of expenditures under the new Act that he plans to bring in, or is that covered --

Hon. J. W. Snow (Minister of Government Services): That’s covered in the Act itself.

Mr. Spence: I thought they were paid last year.

I wondered if some of the $2.5 million is to be set aside for grants under the new drainage Act which I thought the minister indicated he was going to have ready in about two weeks.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: No, Mr. Chairman, any moneys that would be expended under that new drainage Act would be taken care of by that Act. We have no reason to introduce, nor can we legally introduce budgetary estimates on legislation that has not been approved by the House. This is simply in keeping with the present Drainage Act. Even under the new Act, I am sure that this amount will be required and probably a lot more in addition.

Mr. Chairman: Shall vote 1702 carry?

Vote 1702 agreed to.

On vote 1703:

Mr. Riddell: Under the ARDA programme, is it not true to say the old federal-provincial agreement has practically run its course? If such is the case, what is the possibility of a new agreement whereby more realistic land values will be used? In other words, $200 an acre wouldn’t buy swampland in my area, let alone land that could be farmed for agricultural purposes.

As a matter of interest, there used to be two men working full-time in the Huron area on the ARDA programme and now there is one man working on a part-time basis, something like one day a week. Will there be a new agreement whereby more realistic land values will be used?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, we have already approached the federal government with an increase to $350 an acre. I don’t think we have any approval of that as yet, nor do we have the finalization of the continuation of the existing agreement for a further two years with that modification in land prices. We are hopeful that that approval will be given very shortly. We have signed the agreement and, as I understand it, it is just a matter of formality with the federal government to approve it for a further two years.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Huron-Bruce.

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Chairman, I want some clarification with respect to the amount of money being asked under this vote.

I notice in the 1973-1974 estimates it was estimated that you would need $50,174,900 during that fiscal year. In actual fact you spent something in the neighbourhood of $3.2 million less than was requested in that year. During the 1974-1975 fiscal year you asked for $14,827,000, and my question at this point is, if that’s the estimate, what was the actual during the 1974-1975 fiscal year?

Then, to go forward to this year, for the 1975-1976 estimates, I notice that you are asking for $16,715,000, which is substantially above the 1974-1975 estimates. I was under the impression that the programme had tailed off somewhat because of the fact that land prices, as my friend from Huron has said, were away out of reach as to what ARDA could pay. The $200 figure just wouldn’t buy swampland, as has been mentioned here. So I was under the impression that the programme generally had tailed off substantially, and yet you are asking for more money here. I would just simply like to have an explanation as to whether you are going into other areas of development and rehabilitation, or whether in fact you anticipate sort of a rejuvenation of the entire programme?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, the actual expenditure for 1974-1975 was just under $13 million and the difference there -- $1.8 million -- would be about $1 million in money not spent for the farm consolidation programme, partly because of the fact that land prices were not what they should have been. They were set too low and we couldn’t raise them. The remainder of it was in the alternate employment opportunities for rural people. Not all of the budget was used up in that particular regard. Some of the applications were not completed in time to have been approved.

Mr. Gaunt: What about the other part of my question in relation to this year, the additional amount of $16 million? What do you anticipate there? Why are you asking for more money?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: The flood control programme in southwestern Ontario -- that’s the improvement of the dikes in southwestern Ontario, in Essex and Kent counties, on the lower Thames and Sydenham Rivers, and the diking along the shores of Lake St. Clair and Lake Erie -- will amount to an additional $6 million over and above what we have normally been spending, so that’s where the money is going this year.

Mr. Chairman: Does vote 1703 carry? The hon. member for Thunder Bay.

Mr. Stokes: I have one question to ask under ARDA. With the very kind assistance of Mr. Crown, we were able to get a grant for a group called the Ogoki River guides who wanted some financial assistance to establish a tourist enterprise up on Whitewater Lake. Do you have a monitoring system for this programme? How soon will the programme be completed? Are you satisfied that the money was well spent, and that they can finish the programme and get into operation and attract visitors within their budget as outlined when the grant was made?

What is the status of the programme? Will it require additional funding? Or is it ready to go on stream with the present finances that are available?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: All of the funds are federal, The programme is administered through the ARDA administration of our government, through our ministry, but it’s federal dollars totally that are in the programme.

We feel that the programme is worthwhile, that it will fulfil the objectives for which it was intended. I understand that one of the buildings was started last fall; it is hoped to be finished this year. It may require some additional funding, but that will be done on application through Ontario ARDA to the federal government, because it is an Indian project and they finance it totally. We think it is a good project and they will make good use of it.

Mr. Chairman: Shall vote 1703 carry?

Vote 1703 agreed to.

On vote 1704:

Mr. Gaunt: I have some remarks under item 2, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: We’ll carry item 1, and then I suppose we would deal with the various areas under on page R23, farm products marketing.

The hon. member for Huron-Bruce.

Mr. Gaunt: No, I was going on the milk industry -- marketing.

Mr. Chairman: All right. We’ll move down to the milk industry. Carried to that portion?

The hon. member for Huron-Bruce.

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to make some comments with respect to the cheddar cheese industry in the province.

The cheddar cheese industry in the province has undergone some rather severe changes in the last few years. In 1960, we had 148 cheddar cheese plants producing 66.9 million pounds of cheese in Ontario. In 1970 there were 81 plants producing 73.8 million pounds. In 1973, there were 44 plants producing 67 million pounds of cheddar cheese.

Eastern Ontario cheese plants supplied about 60 per cent of Ontario’s cheddar production five years ago, but they have been rapidly phasing out over the past number of years.

In 1972, there were 22 cheddar cheese firms in eastern Ontario. In 1974, the figure was 15. I suppose one can put that reduction down in part to the minister’s programme. The plant consolidation assistance programme, I believe, was introduced in 1970. It provided grants of up to $100,000 to cheese factories which closed up.

I believe that at the end of the 40-month programme -- I think it ended in 1973 -- 33 factories had received $930,000 or thereabouts to close up their operations.

The most startling figure that I noted in reviewing this particular matter was the fact that Ontario cheddar cheese production reached a high of 90 million pounds in 1965, but has declined steadily since then to an estimated 65.5 million pounds in 1973. I don’t have the figure for 1974.

Export sales in 1965 totalled 26.3 million. The figure for 1973 was 2.5 million pounds, down substantially from the 26.3 million pounds in 1965. In 1966, Ontario production accounted for 54 per cent of the cheddar consumed in Canada. In 1973, the figure was 35 per cent. It’s estimated that in 1980 it will account for 30 per cent of the Canadian market. Ontario’s 44 cheddar factories have sufficient capacity now to produce half of Canada’s cheddar requirements, as I understand it. In addition, there’s also some capacity there for an export market which apparently we are not filling.

I believe it was recommended in one of the reports of the Ontario Milk Marketing Board that the cheddar cheese quota be removed from the plant supply quota, since that particular system was formulated at a time when cheddar cheese production in Ontario was consistently in excess of demand. That isn’t the case any longer.

I’m wondering if this is going to be done. In view of the fact that our capacity now in those 44 factories is sufficient to produce more cheddar cheese than we are actually producing, I’m wondering what we can do to stimulate this particular production.

One of the suggestions that has been brought forward by the Milk Marketing Board is that the cheese quota be separated from the plant supply quota so that the milk coming in on the plant supply quota wouldn’t be taken into account at all in regard to the cheddar cheese milk that would be coming in. To my knowledge that separation has never taken place.

I think it would be a good idea because Ontario produces a very high quality cheddar cheese. It was in great demand in the export market for many years. During this period of rationalization we have undergone, I think we’ve lost a major portion of that export market. Even in our own country we’re not maintaining our position in so far as the production of this province is concerned.

Mr. Chairman: Any further comments?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak about that. We share the concern the member has expressed regarding import of cheese into this country. We realize that our exports of cheese are away down but Britain is now in the European Common Market and there is virtually no way we can ship there unless we pay an enormous duty. As a matter of fact, the duty on cheese, that may have left Montreal or Halifax or wherever it may have been shipped from, could be changed before it ever arrived at the other side.

To me, it’s an incredible situation. Nobody knows, really, when they load the cheese on the ship to go over what the duty is going to be when they get it to the other side. When you talk about cheese coming into this country, that’s the disturbing thing. Why in the world does the federal government allow 50 million pounds of cheese to be imported into Canada, all under permit granted by the federal government to come in here at a duty that is so insignificant it hardly warrants the time to calculate the amount on a per cent per pound basis?

I have to say we’re greatly concerned. I heard the federal minister make a great and lusty speech on what was going to happen as far as this kind of thing was concerned, and nothing has happened. It’s still coming in. Who’s trying to kid whom?

We have milk in this country that can be used for specialty cheese production. We have the knowhow to do it. Admittedly, there is no market for cheddar cheese outside of Canada except on a very specialized basis. It’s a high cost item, a luxury item really, on the British market. We said 2.5 million pounds lost year? Whether that’s the accurate figure or not, I’m not sure. Maybe that was for 1973 was it? The member gave the figure.

Mr. Gaunt: That was for 1973.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: It was for 1973. I don’t know what it was for 1974. Do you happen to have cheddar cheese exports from Canada for 1974. It would be less than that, so it’s practically nil.

But, of course, every pound of cheese that went out of this country in the past had to be sent out at a very substantial cost to the producer. When we were shipping 30 million pounds of cheese to Great Britain there was a lot of flag-waving done about what a great export market it was, but every pound that left this country had 15 cents of producers’ money attached to get it out. That is the kind of a subsidy they were paying.

It seems to me it would be a lot better to convert that kind of milk into special cheese products here at home. These products find a ready market here, for which we are bringing in imports at the present time. I would like to see more milk used in Canada to produce cheese to meet domestic requirements. Few commodities have enjoyed the per capita consumption escalation cheese has in the last few years.

It certainly is the “in thing” now to have cheese, and all kinds of quantities. The old cheddar was popular with a great many of us -- and still is -- but these newer specialty cheeses are certainly going over in a big way.

The matter of no quota for cheddar cheese manufacturers -- promoted by a few cheddar cheese manufacturers -- was not recommended by the Ontario Milk Marketing Board. We took that into consideration and were a bit cautious about it. It is an interesting figure -- since 1960 to 1973, an increase in per capita consumption of cheese from 2.8 to 4.9; doubled almost. It’s quite significant, really. And all of this, of course, points to the growing market for cheese in this country. We see that it will likely continue to go up. It’s a very popular commodity today.

Mr. Chairman: Carried?

Mr. Gaunt: I presume, Mr. Chairman, that the import market in this province really became established because of two factors; both taking place, as I recall it, at roughly the same point in time. The fact is there wasn’t really enough milk being produced to meet the demand here in the province, and so the consumption had to be met in some fashion. It was met at that time by importing cheese. Once the pattern became established, it seems to have continued.

It is rather unfortunate, I think, that we have so much importation of cheese at this particular point -- because I believe that much of that market could now be filled by domestic production.

I think the other point that was a factor at one time was the fairly high level of export. On the one hand our plants weren’t getting enough milk to meet their requirements; and on the other hand we were exporting a fair amount of cheddar cheese. So the domestic market had to be filled in some fashion, and it was filled by the importation of cheese.

May I ask the minister a question in this respect? Do we actually have enough milk production in the province to fill all of the capacity of the 44 remaining cheese plants in the province, if they ran on a five-day-week basis?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I am told that the answer to the question is yes. It’s a very technical question, and at this particular time I think it is difficult to answer. But my officials tell me there will be sufficient milk. I think we are coming into the flush part of the season and there will be enough milk. But you know, it is interesting -- we just did a rough calculation here on the production of cheddar cheese. It amounts to just about 90 million pounds in 1974. That’s cheddar cheese; and that is the same figure as 1965.

On top of that, we produced all these specialty cheeses as well. The per capita consumption, having doubled in Canada, is using that cheese up at quite a significant rate. It disappears; it doesn’t have to go into export markets. It’s being used right at home here, which is the best market it could possibly be used in.

It’s quite significant that we have so many fewer cheese factories than we had before, but the volume is greatly increased and it is meeting the demand for cheddar cheese. I don’t think there’s been very much cheddar cheese imported into Canada at all; it’s mostly all specialty cheese which has come in.

We’re hopeful, with the obviously increased volume of milk, which I understand will be up about three per cent over last year, that we will have much greater supplies of industrial milk to go around not only for cheddar cheese production but for specialty cheese production. I’m hopeful that we’ll be able to replace some of those imports of specialty cheese with domestically-produced specialty cheese, because there is a great market for it.

Mr. Chairman: Any further discussion under this section? Any discussion under Ontario food and market development? The member for Thunder Bay.

Mr. Stokes: Yes, I have something. This is something I have no personal knowledge of at all but I would like to ask the minister --

Mr. C. E. McIlveen (Oshawa): You’re going to talk about it anyway.

Mr. Stokes: Yes, I’m going to talk about it anyway, right.

Mr. McIlveen: Atta boy.

Mr. Stokes: Right. It concerns a Mr. Joe Burnette who, I’m told, is quite an affluent individual in the southern part of Ontario. He’s going to purchase three additional units or food stalls at the Ontario Food Terminal. I’m told he’s going to purchase Gordon Smith Produce at a cost of about half a million dollars. He presently has a 20 per cent ownership of a co-op in Leamington. The purchase of Gordon Smith Produce will give Burnette a 25 per cent ownership at the Ontario Food Terminal. This represents eight A units of the total of 40 A units.

This move will come before a committee of the food terminal within the next week or so, I’m told, and it’s felt there’s no reason to believe the committee will not grant permission to Burnette to purchase these three units.

Is the minister concerned at all that one individual would have the largest single ownership, and perhaps be well on the way to getting virtually complete control of the Ontario Food Terminal? I don’t know the ins and outs of this operation. All I’m raising it for is to see whether the minister is concerned that this could become a complete monopoly in the hands of one individual. Do you have any thoughts on the matter?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I must confess this is the first I’ve heard of the application. My friend mentioned that the application would be made to the food terminal board for consideration and we have very great faith in the Ontario Food Terminal board. It consists of members of the exchange, producers and distributors from the market -- that’s the small handlers and wholesalers -- and retailers as well. The whole produce industry is represented on that food terminal board. I’m sure they will deal with it with good judgement and wisdom, whatever decision they make. But I had not heard about it before.

Mr. Stokes: Would you look into it to see whether or not this individual’s position is fast reaching the point where he might be in a position to control or manipulate pricing of produce in the Province of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: We have great faith in the board. I don’t think it’s our position to say to the board, after it has assumed the responsibility for the management of the market: “You may or you may not grant this application.” We would be pleased to look into it but I don’t want my friend --

Mr. Stokes: Since you are the Minister of Agriculture and Food, surely you must be somewhat concerned about one person?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I’m not going to give my friend the word today that I’m going to tell them not to grant the application.

Mr. Stokes: No, I’m asking you to look into it.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: We will certainly look into it.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Kent.

Mr. Spence: Mr. Minister, how many trade missions went to Europe or other countries this year to find markets for agricultural products? Hog prices were down, for example. Were there trade missions?

Hon. Mr. Stewart; Yes: In November 1974 to the sale, agriculture and food show in Paris, France; to the frozen food and freezer festival, London, England in October 1974. Six Ontario companies participated in that one. In the sale there were 13 Ontario food processing companies. There were two missions to the United States, one to Buffalo involving seven companies and the other to Chicago involving six companies. There were two to the Caribbean: One in May to Trinidad, Barbados and Puerto Rico involving six Ontario food companies; and the second mission to Bermuda, Nassau and Freeport in November 1974 involving five companies. There were two missions to Japan. A reconnaissance mission in April, 1974 went to Japan, Hong Kong, Kuala Lumpur and Singapore. The Tokyo mission included two marketing boards and four companies. A mission went to five Middle East countries in February 1975. That’s the total.

Mr. Spence: Did the white bean board go on a mission?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes, they did.

Mr. Spence: And did they find any markets?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes. As I mentioned earlier tonight, they have markets in 12 different countries they are certain of, and they think they’ll have 15 in total.

Mr. Chairman: Item 3, quality control of agricultural products. Is there any discussion on any of the areas on page B25?

Vote 1704 agreed to.

On vote 1705:

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Huron-Bruce, which item?

Mr. Gaunt: I will just have to have a look here. Yes, I have some comments on item 3, research, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: All right. I assume that items 1 and 2 will carry; item 3, the hon. member for Huron-Bruce.

Mr. Gaunt: There are three matters I want to talk about on this particular item. I will deal with the two matters that are going to consume the least time. The first one has to do with the warble fly spray control programme.

Mr. H. Worton (Wellington South): That is a good one.

Mr. Stokes: I wondered when the member was going to get around to that.

Mr. R. G. Eaton (Middlesex South): The member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) is not here tonight.

Mr. Gaunt: Since my friend the member for Riverdale is not here tonight, I felt I just had to get it in before this vote carried. I am going to do it under research rather than under livestock branch, because I think this particular programme needs a little more research.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I am sure it does.

Mr. Gaunt: It really hasn’t been terribly effective over the past number of years. I suppose it has exercised some control but it really hasn’t wiped out the problem in terms of correcting the situation.

Mr. Stokes: Is it an endangered species?

Mr. Gaunt: I would like to see it an endangered species, unfortunately it isn’t. I have had some representation with respect to how the programme is going to operate. It is all over now for this year. As I understand it, it wasn’t nearly as vigorous in its application this year as it has been in past years, for a number of reasons.

The powder has gone up tremendously in price, I’m told. I think a 15-lb bag is quite expensive. Forty 15-lb bags cost $608. if one wanted to divide 40 into $608, he’d get the cost of a 15-lb bag.

That’s a substantial price increase. The fact is that the spray operators are also experiencing substantial increases in their cost of operation; price of parts, gasoline, fuel oil and so on. I understand many of the townships just weren’t very keen on going forward with this particular programme this year.

I would like to get some comments from the minister with respect to what research, if any, is being conducted into this particular problem to see if we can come up with a more effective method whereby this problem can lie controlled and, hopefully, in the near future eradicated altogether.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, the Warble Fly Act is always interesting to me. I know something about it. The first cattle ever sprayed in Middlesex county under the direction of the illustrious father of the member for Huron was done on my farm -- a great many years ago.

It was done on a research project; and it has been a practice ever since. For the life of me, I don’t understand why farmers have to be legislated or regulated to do this. I know of no better investment. But I know of no poorer investment than doing it on that business of the spray of powder or the scrubbing procedure, and all the rest of it. The damage has been done then.

The real way to control warbles is to use the systemics developed through research. There are a number of them on the market, including pour-on applications. It is just a matter of running the cattle through a squeeze and pouring it along their back and it’s taken care of. It eliminates the warbles before they do any harm, any damage to the animal, no hide punctures, no damage to the carcass. It completely eliminates the louse problem. It just takes care of the whole deal as far as cattle are concerned.

For the life of me, I don’t understand why there are people who are saying to us that we should have the law to make people do this, when it’s so obviously in the best interests of the owners of the cattle to do it themselves.

We have legislation on the books. In a township where two-thirds or more of the cattle owners petition for compulsory treatment, the township council is required to pass a bylaw making such treatment compulsory. Cattle free of warble grubs are exempt from the regulations, but in any municipality where a bylaw is in force, any cattle which show evidence of warble grubs during the period from April 10 to May 31 must be treated.

The point I am trying to make is that’s when the damage is all done. It should be done in the fall of the year; as a pour-on treatment. It’s simple, and you’re done; finished; it’s all over with for the rest of the winter. There is no damage to the cattle, providing it’s done at the appropriate time in the fall.

Really, I must say I’m not very enthusiastic about enforcement of the Warble Fly Act. I have said, on more than one occasion, I don’t understand why anybody doesn’t do it without having to be forced to do it, because I couldn’t afford to have cattle on our farm without doing it. It’s as simple as that. To me, it’s just as much a matter of good management as anything can possibly be.

I have to say to my hon. friend that’s the way we look at it. We have withdrawn any subsidization of the product that is used for warble fly control, because the powder -- which I think my hon. friend is referring to in the 40-lb packages -- is one way of doing it, but it’s a bit like you and I going out to take a team of horses to plant a field of grain tomorrow when the next-door neighbour is using a tractor, a 20-ft cultivator and a big drill. He’s all through at night and you and I have just started to work the field. It’s about the same comparison.

The new systemic treatment is so far ahead of anything else there is no comparison. I must say that the first systemic treatment used in Middlesex county was used on our farm, too, just as an experiment, a research product.

We kept accurate records of all the cattle. They were all examined at periodic times during the winter and into the spring to determine how many warbles showed up. It was absolutely amazing. There was virtually absolute control in the first year we used it.

We have been using that kind of control on our farm ever since, and there are countless thousands of farmers doing the same thing all across Canada, so I don’t know why anybody would want to wait until the spring of the year to do it. For the life of me, I just don’t understand it.

For the other treatment to be effective after the bug has bored a hole through the animal’s hide, punctured the hide, the control product has to get in there to kill the warble, the little grub, after the damage has been done. Why not do it in the systemic way and kill him before he does any harm to either the animal or to the carcass. I think farmers would save themselves all kinds of money if they were to do it in the proper way at the fall of the year.

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Chairman, I agree with the minister entirely. I am wondering how many townships in the province pursued the outmoded method, so to speak, this year?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I don’t know. I don’t really know how many there are. I don’t know whether we have a record of it or not.

It is not really in this Act. It is in the livestock section and I think Mr. McGill has gone. I can’t honestly tell you, but I will tell you if there are any they should be enforcing it in the fall of the year. That’s the time to do it. I admire those that they have that regulation, but do it in the fall of the year. We have tried to persuade them to do it that way. That’s the time to do it. Cover the whole thing and it is all done by a very simple application.

Any farmer can do it himself without hiring anybody. The spray avoids the cold shower on the cattle and all the rest of it. It’s very simple and that’s the way to do it.

Mr. Gaunt: Does your ministry offer any incentives to councils to promote --

Hon. Mr. Stewart: We offer no more incentives to treat for warble fly control than we would for my hon. friend’s poultry house, to control Merrick’s disease.

Mr. Gaunt: I can do that on my own.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Of course you can.

Mr. Gaunt: I wouldn’t put in a crop without doing it.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: You wouldn’t think of not doing it in your poultry operation.

Mr. Gaunt: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: You just wouldn’t operate it. Or apples -- Gordon Bennett says apples -- or treating for, what do you call it, root-worm in corn production. Look at the thousands and thousands of acres of that we grow in Ontario and we don’t pay a subsidy to control wire worm and the corn root worm. We don’t pay a subsidy for that. Why should we pay a subsidy to treat cattle for warbles? This is beyond my comprehension. That’s why we cancelled it out.

Mr. Worton: So much for the warble fly.

Mr. Chairman: Any further discussion on item 3?

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Chairman, I was interested in the annual “Meet the Members” meeting in Huron county this year. We have one of these every year and the commodity organizations and the counties submit briefs to the members of parliament, both federal and provincial. There are many interesting matters raised at these meetings. The concerns of the various commodity groups are put forward and put forward very effectively. This year in Huron county, the chairman of the Huron County Pork Producers, as part of his submission, mentioned the lack of research into methane production; methane being derived from manure.

Apparently there was a project that was supposed to have been undertaken at Arkell. I think there was something in the neighbourhood of $200,000 set aside for a research project into this method of energy production. For some reason or other the costs of the project started to escalate very rapidly, and the latest word I had was that the entire project was on ice; that it wasn’t going forward at all. I think that is regrettable, because I think there are some very real advantages to this kind of programme. Farmers are great energy consumers, they use a lot of energy in the production of food, and this is a sort of a natural recycling process that could make very effective use of manure and at the same time provide a source of energy for the farmers. There is a chap in the Stratford area who is doing this kind of research on his own, apparently, but he has come to the end of the line, too, in this regard because there is only so far a private individual can go. You put a lot of your own money into this kind of thing; research is very costly these days and he had to quit. He was making good progress, I understand, but really couldn’t get the thing cranked up because he ran out of money. I’m wondering if the minister has any further thoughts as to undertaking and going forward with a research project of this nature.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes, we’re tremendously interested in the project. The whole thing is that it really doesn’t look like an economic project. We don’t know what the end of the seventies will bring as far as energy costs are concerned. It may change the picture, who knows?

In the meantime, the Agricultural Research Institute is pursuing research in this area, working together with the Ministry of Energy, our own Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Waterloo University and the University of Guelph, the OAC, on a project proposal. I believe they’re also looking at the project going on in connection with methane gas production in Winnipeg, at the University of Manitoba.

The matter is still under consideration, but as far as saying it’s going to be in operation in a practical way, I don’t think that’s going to happen for some time. It may well be that if a research project develops, it might more appropriately develop at the Arkell farm where you’ve got a number of hogs located, because the volume --

Mr. Worton: More liquid.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Right. The volume of product to be used in effluent is extremely important. We’ll be continuing the research on it, but we think we had better do it on our own research project farm at Arkell.

I would mention as well, Mr. Chairman, if I might, that we have a $140,000 project going on in research into corn drying this year to find better ways of saving energy to dry corn. That’s a mighty important aspect of Ontario agriculture as well.

Mr. Chairman: Any further discussion on item 3? The member for Huron.

Mr. Riddell: I have had occasion to participate in some of the farm tours arranged through the ag rep in Huron and to take part in short courses arranged through the Ontario College of Agriculture and Technology. One of the complaints I hear a good deal of the time is that we have moved away from doing practical research, such as breeding and feeding, and we’re paying too much attention to researching what effect drugs would have on the sex life of rats or something of this nature.

A case in point here is when the subsidy programme was announced for potatoes, farmers went out to release some of the stored potatoes as feed for the livestock. About a day after the subsidy was announced, there was an article in the London Free Press advising farmers to be very careful about feeding potatoes. I understand a lot of farmers have shied away from feeding these potatoes to their livestock because of the scare they had when they --

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): They didn’t put any salt on them.

Mr. Riddell: -- learned what might happen to those cattle. Here is a place where research could be well done on the feeding of potatoes to livestock and whether they do have any serious side effects on livestock. I will say to the minister that I think you’ve made an ideal choice in your appointment of a director to replace Mr. Huntley.

I think he is a very practical man. If indeed we have got away from practical research, I am sure that he will bring us back into line. What is your opinion? Do you feel that we have got away from practical research and perhaps we are spending too much time on some of these obscure research projects?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I am given to understand that 60 per cent of the research done in the Province of Ontario, under the Agricultural Research Institute, is the kind of research to which you refer. Now it may not be enough; I don’t know. I think we have to recognize that 60 per cent is a fair percentage of it, though.

With regard to the potato issue, it is an unfortunate thing. I think maybe there was some over-reaction by the person who was responsible for that article. I think he was as embarrassed about it as anybody else. Really it is not that important, and certainly it isn’t that dangerous, because just this weekend I heard one of our people from the Ministry of Agriculture and Food recommending the use of potatoes and how much could be used. All that material is available; there is no question at all that the research has been done.

I think the chap over-reacted and perhaps wasn’t as knowledgeable about that particular aspect as he might have been. As he explained it to me personally, I think he was concerned more about the sprouts on potatoes than he was about the actual feeding of the potatoes to livestock. But if the potatoes were fed in a reasonable way and not a big gorge of them given to the livestock right off the bat, there would be little likelihood of any problem.

To my knowledge, no known damage has occurred in the feeding of potatoes to livestock, and certainly an enormous amount of it is being done. When you consider that Bob Bechtel at Breslau is finishing 9,000 cattle a year on potato wastes from the potato plants of this province, there is not much likelihood of danger. He is expanding that cattle-feeding operation to 12,000 head of cattle a year -- all of them finished on potato wastes from the various potato-processing plants that we have now in Ontario. Potato business is big business in Ontario.

I am absolutely delighted to see what Bob Bechtel’s been able to do in using a waste product and converting it into wholesome beef. It’s quite something. He starts those cattle off on a different type of feed, but he finishes those cattle on potatoes. So there is really no great problem and an enormous amount of research has been done on it already.

Mr. Chairman: Shall item 3 carry?

Mr. Gaunt: No, Mr. chairman. I want to talk about raspberries before we close off. I am going to finish this off before 10:30 p.m. I know the minister wants to get these estimates passed; I am not going to prolong this but I had to get my raspberry speech in.

I am not going to discuss the actual merits of the case. They are not sub judice because the appeal the province now has undertaken, again only refers to the amount of the award and not the merits of the case. I don’t want to get into the merits of the case; I discussed the case last year at some length and I don’t think we got anywhere with it.

There is only one point that worries me about this case, and I want to put it to the minister in a little lengthier way than I was able to do in the question period.

There is no doubt in the world that the province has the responsibility for this case; consequently, that’s why the award has been given in the manner it has been given. I suppose the province says, “We are not responsible to that degree”, and, consequently, they are appealing the amount of the award.

The Court of Appeal in the Hartman case found that the matter was between the province and the grower and that the federal Department of Agriculture was not involved as far as responsibility was concerned. That was the finding of the Court of Appeal. Now we come to the situation where Mr. Hartman wants some more plants, some more élite stock, and the province has simply shut him off. That’s really the point I want to raise with the minister tonight.

On Feb. 18, 1975, Mr. Hartman wrote to Dr. C. L. Ricketson at the research institute in Vineland and he said:

“This is to inquire about the availability of raspberry stock for the spring of 1975. Will élite stock for foundation production be available? As you are aware, we did not receive élite plants in 1973, or 1974, so we have only one more year to go on the certified stock. The demand for certified raspberry plants exceeds the supply, so we are very interested in seeing the continuation of this programme.”

Then he lists the varieties he would like.

“As the season is getting on and we have to plant our programme for this year, an early reply would be most helpful.”

So, Dr. Ricketson replied to him on Feb. 21, 1975:

“Dear Mr. Hartman:

“Our institute will not be propagating any élite stock raspberry plants for distribution this spring under the Ontario raspberry certification programme. You may be able to obtain some planting material from virus-induced stock from the research station, Canada Department of Agriculture, Vineland. If so, you must understand that any material supplied to you is not being supplied for propagation under the Ontario raspberry certification programme.”

So, Mr. Hartman wrote on the same date, Feb. 18, to Dr. McGinnis, the director of the Canada Department of Agriculture, in Vineland, making the same request. I’ll just read part of the letter. He says, in the fourth paragraph:

“We did not receive any élite plants in 1973 and 1974, although we know that these were produced by Dr. Ricketson and later destroyed when denied to us by his superior, Dr. Archibald.”

And that certainly raised all kinds of flags in my mind. The minister had said earlier, and I think under date of April 21 in the House, when I asked the minister about why Mr. Hartman couldn’t be supplied with raspberry plants, the minister had replied that they were phasing out the programme. But this tends to indicate that the programmes were not really being phased out in a systematic fashion; they were only being phased out as far as Mr. Hartman was concerned. That certainly worried me.

Now, I think the minister mentioned in another place in Hansard that if the federal government wanted to go forward with the programme, they were quite free to do so. But Dr. McGinnis replied to Mr. Hartman on Feb. 25, in response to his request for plants, in the following manner:

“This is in response to your letter of Feb. 18 concerning availability of élite raspberry stock from this station.

“Traditionally, propagation and distribution have been provincial functions. Our mission has been, and continues to be, that of freeing parent stock from viruses and maintaining limited quantities only of each cultivate for distribution to other research organizations. As our responsibility has not changed, we are unable to meet your request.”

So, he is simply saying that they don’t get involved in the propagation and distribution, that is a provincial function. And he is saying: “If the province is going to carry that on, so be it; they will supply you with the plants.”

Now, my question really is this: Why did the ministry phase out the certification programme in view of the fact that there appears to be a good demand for these plants, not only in other provinces, but in the United States as well?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: For a very simple reason. Why should the Province of Ontario be treated any differently by your friends at Ottawa than the other nine provinces in Canada? We were the only province doing what McGinnis says now is a provincial responsibility. What he should have said was that the Province of Ontario was propagating and distributing the raspberry plants -- and any other type of plant as well. That isn’t done by any other provincial government.

We co-operated with them. We did everything we could to try to make that programme work effectively. And just as soon as a mistake was made, and we were taken to court by Hartman, the feds bowed out and said: “No, it is all your responsibility.”

Now, if it is our responsibility when the thing goes wrong through an error -- if that is what happened -- that will be for the courts to finally determine. And they haven’t finally determined that yet.

Mr. Gaunt: Oh they’ve already decided that.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: They haven’t finally determined it yet.

Mr. Gaunt: Yes they have. It is just that they haven’t determined the amount. They have determined the amount of the award, but you are appealing it.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: They have determined that all right; but we will find out how far it will go yet. I can tell you there is no reason or no basis for the Province of Ontario continuing that kind of a programme; and it is being phased out in all its respects.

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Chairman -- if I can pursue that just one step further -- if I understand the minister correctly, Ontario was the only province where this kind of programme applied.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: We understand that we were the only province carrying on that kind of a propagation programme in Canada -- to my knowledge. Now, if I am wrong somebody here will correct me. But as far as I understand it, that is what was going on. We were the only provincial government involved in that kind of a programme. If the feds want to do it, fine and dandy. But let them take the responsibility right through the piece.

Mr. Ferrier: Of course, Ontario is the cornerstone of Confederation.

Mr. Gaunt: What types of programmes were they undertaking in the other provinces?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I can’t tell you. It is their programme, not ours.

Mr. Gaunt: So you are not sure whether there was a raspberry certification programme in any of the other provinces, or any plant certification programme in any of the other provinces.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I have no idea. We were the only province in that kind of a deal.

Mr. Gaunt: I almost hesitate to ask this question, but I presume that you have made approaches to Ottawa to share the liability in this particular case -- and they have rejected that claim? Is that a fair assessment?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Do you want me to go into that song and dance right now?

Mr. Ruston: We haven’t got time.

Mr. Ferrier: There are only three minutes left.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I can explain it in a way you’ll understand it; and they’ll understand it, too. If they want to turn their backs on us in a deal like this, then they can propagate this thing for all types of commodities, if they want to do it.

Mr. Ferrier: After all the nice words you say about them, they are not going to turn their backs on you.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: But we are not doing it, I’ll tell you that right now.

Mr. Chairman: Any further discussion on raspberries, or any other subject?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: If you are going to have a two-way programme, then let it be a two-way programme, but not one of those kind of one-way deals and the other fellow takes the bumps when things go wrong.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville would like to talk on another subject.

Mr. B. Newman: I read of the surplus of potatoes and some going to rot, or going to be dumped and so forth; has the minister considered a food voucher plan? It would be similar to what they use in the United States where they provide these vouchers to people who are on welfare, or suffering in other difficult financial straits. They use these to purchase the foodstuffs at a reduced price. Is there any merit in adopting that here?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I don’t know how much further you would reduce the price of potatoes beyond 10 pounds for 28 cents. Now really, I don’t think there are many people in Ontario who can’t afford to buy potatoes at that price. And really, consider the administrative structure of putting on a food price stamp to get potatoes down from 10 pounds for 28 cents.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): I agree with you. It is the first time in seven years.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: By gosh, I’ll tell you, I don’t know how it can be done.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Minister, I am not telling you that you must do it or anything. It just seems strange that we would dump and destroy food when there are many people in our society who are going hungry. Surely there should be some method by which we can funnel this food to people in need.

Mr. J. A. Taylor (Prince Edward-Lennox): Do you know anyone?

Mr. B. Newman: And I am referring to people in need in our own province.

Mr. Chairman: Shall vote 1705 carry?

Vote 1705 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: This completes the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

Mr. Gaunt: We didn’t end on a raspberry note at all, it was on potatoes.

Mr. Ferrier: You can head up that committee now.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Never crossed my mind.

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 begs to report certain resolutions and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will deal with items 10, 11 and 12 standing on the order paper. You will note that the 12th order is not yet printed, but I expect it will be in the morning. Since it is a very minor bill in any event, I don’t think that will matter to too many people. That’s the way I will call them, although I am not sure of the order. Then we will return to the budget debate following consideration of those few items.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): The House leader didn’t forget item 3, by any chance? He mentioned earlier that perhaps he would do the Juries Act.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I don’t think we can do it tomorrow.

Mr. Deans: Okay, that’s fine.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I think the minister has a commitment out of the city. I won’t forget it, to be sure.

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

Motion agreed to.

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