The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

RURAL ELECTRICAL RATES

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the House that I have requested the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) to obtain from Ontario Hydro, special electricity rate proposals designed to reduce the differential between the retail rate for electricity paid by rural residents and that paid by urban residents.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Finally, after 37 years. What a great day!

Hon. Mr. Davis: Do you want some of the history of it?

Mr. S. Smith: There wouldn’t be an election coming, would there?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would only say to the interjection of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. S. Smith), who still so badly wants an election, this government feels it is here to govern. If he wants to go out traipsing around politicking every day of the week, let him be my guest.

The government and Ontario Hydro have had discussions about the desirability of minimizing the spread in rates between rural Hydro customers and those communities served by municipal utilities.

The House leader for the Liberal Party (Mr. Nixon) has a particular interest in this. It may have some economic impact.

Mr. Nixon: I have been subsidizing your rates for years.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The order before the House is ministerial statements.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am delighted to see you in the chair, Mr. Speaker, but your colleagues really are interrupting a great deal today.

Average rural rates are 29 per cent higher than the average municipal rates. It is my expectation that those proposals will be available this fall so that revised proposed rates could be introduced by Ontario Hydro as quickly as possible. My own personal objective would be no later than January 1.

As members of this House are aware, the retail electricity distribution system in this province is for the most part municipally based. Ontario Hydro produces bulk power at cost and sells it to the 324 retail municipal electric utilities, serving over two million retail customers. Each municipal public utility purchases electricity at essentially the same rate from Ontario Hydro and then adds its own retail distribution costs. These costs usually represent about 15 to 20 per cent of the total cost of electricity sold to the consumers. Because of the different distribution cost conditions in different communities, municipal retail rates differ widely across the province.

When a municipality does not choose to establish a municipal electric utility, or in the more remote areas of the province, the Power Corporation Act requires Ontario Hydro to supply electricity directly to the retail customers. Ontario Hydro also sells electricity directly to 100 large industrial customers and, by means of diesel electric systems, to customers meeting minimum density requirements in remote communities, mostly in the far north. At the present time, Ontario’s rural retail system or rural power district serves over 770,000 retail customers or 27 per cent of the electricity customers in the province.

The rural power district serves a large geographic area, some 250,000 square miles, with a very low average customer density: an average of only 14 customers per mile of distribution line versus an average of 100 customers in the municipal system.

The current inequity is going to become increasingly burdensome as the trend continues towards urbanization. Each year more and more rural areas are becoming part of our urban municipalities, and in most cases it is the most densely populated portion of the rural areas which undergo this change. All of this means that over the next few years the rural cost burden will be shared by a decreasing number of people in more sparsely settled areas of the province, unless we do something to offset the situation.

In the last 10 years, some 80,000 customers who were formerly supplied with electricity directly by Ontario Hydro became customers of municipal utilities. The percentage of Ontario electrical consumers served by municipal utilities is also increasing steadily. Government policy continues to be aimed in that direction, but the comparatively higher rate consequences for those not served by municipal utilities are obvious.

It is with this probability in mind that I have directed that ways be found not only to avoid this rate trend but, in fact, to reverse it.

Let there be no misunderstanding about the government’s continuing and abundant faith in the municipal distribution system. There is the highest regard for the commissioners and staffs of the 324 municipal utilities who serve the people of Ontario so well. They perform an essential and increasingly important service in the distribution of electricity throughout their municipal systems.

It is the government’s objective that the rural rate differential be substantially diminished for those who by reason of geography are served by Hydro directly and who pay more than municipal customers. This will mean that the lower rate would not recover all the costs of the rural power system.

It has long been a principle that the electrical customer receive power at cost. That principle will be maintained. It is also a fundamental principle that each community -- that is, municipality -- should pay for its own retail distribution costs and this may, as it does, result in municipal electric retail rates varying widely across the province.

However, when the principle that each municipality should pay its own retail distribution costs is applied to the customers of Ontario Hydro’s rural power districts, it is apparent that there is an inequitable burden being placed on those who live in the rural parts of Ontario.

It is this inequity that I have asked the Minister of Energy and Ontario Hydro to address and to make recommendations to me for its solution.

Mr. Nixon: On a point of order: As Mr. Speaker and the Premier (Mr. Davis) know, the rules require the tabling of the compendium of background information on a statement of policy of this type. Does the Premier have the material available for the interested members of the House and the community?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I understand the rules. The policy being announced today is a very simple one. I have asked the Minister of Energy and Ontario Hydro to make recommendations to me and to the government as to how we might reduce the inequities between the urban and the rural customer.

I would suggest to the honourable member that when those recommendations come forward, which will result in a further policy statement, we would be delighted to attach to it the various studies et cetera that are required. I think it is fair to state that there doesn’t need to be a compendium on a statement where I have asked Ontario Hydro and the Minister of Energy to solve a problem.

Mr. Nixon: Would the Premier simply table the information that is available to him that indicates the serious nature of these disparities and which would lead him to ask his colleague, the Minister of Energy, to look into it?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I have a feeling the leader -- not the leader, that’s a Freudian slip -- the House leader of the Liberal Party actually discussed some of these figures with me some months ago in this House. But I would be delighted to get further information for him.

Mr. S. Smith: Now that after 35 years they have discovered the rural rates are the highest in Canada west of New Brunswick, who knows what else we might find out from the cabinet today?

Mr. Nixon: Nothing like a little pressure to make the Tories move.

Mr. S. Smith: Word of an election sure brings them out.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller), in view of the very severe financial difficulties Ontario farmers are finding themselves in because of the unprecedented high interest rates, and in view of the requests from the Ontario Federation of Agriculture made to the Treasurer on March 25 asking for short-term loans at 10 per cent interest to help farmers --

Interjections.

Mr. S. Smith: I’m sorry, Mr. Speaker, it would appear that some of the urban members of the Conservative caucus are not much interested in hearing about the problems faced by the farmers, but we’re quite interested.

In view of the letter the Treasurer has received from the Ontario Federation of Agriculture asking for short-term loans at 10 per cent interest to help the farmers through the 1980 cropping season, is the Treasurer now prepared to state what assistance he will provide for needy farmers in Ontario?

2:10 p.m.

Hon. F. S. Miller: In specifics, no, Mr. Speaker. I can only say to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. S. Smith) that this problem is very grave. He knows we’re studying it and discussing the problem of interest rates in general with the federal government.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary: Since there have been considerable numbers of reports indicating that some farmers have had to sell off their farm machinery to reduce their debts, and one bank alone is said to have foreclosed on 40 cash-crop farmers west of London, Ontario, this winter; and since bank managers have files on their desks right now of farmers who are being put to the wall; and given the many millions of dollars that the Treasurer was able to find for other matters, including $15 million he was prepared to spend to help some people get rid of the inventory of 1979 automobiles, it does appear to me that the Treasurer should be doing more than studying this.

Would the Treasurer not accept that this is a very serious threat to rural Ontario? Will he do what every other province has been able to do, and make some money available to the needy farmers in Ontario, before it’s too late, at reasonable rates of interest?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I find myself in rare agreement with the honourable member, who, the other day, had the opportunity to say he totally disagreed with Ottawa’s interest-rate policy. He has an opportunity to say that in public today.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s after helping to get them elected.

Hon. F. S. Miller: It’s nice to see him turn around so quickly after he canvassed rural Ontario on behalf of that party. The Liberals then raised the interest rates far beyond what our government had.

Interjections.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a twofold supplementary question. Why does the Treasurer have to study this when practically every other province has indicated the solution is the provision of preferential interest rates?

Secondly, if the Treasurer is willing to see, for example, the distressed businessmen in Port Hope being assisted, and worthily assisted, at six per cent interest, why can’t he move immediately to do something about the distressed farmers of the province?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I would say I’m kind of aware of the distressed farmer problem because I happen to own half of a farm; it happens to be a dairy farm. I happen to know what interest rates are doing to that farm, and I happen to know that right now you can’t change the price of milk if you want to when the interest rates go up. I know what’s happening to the price of feed.

It’s very simple to try to put the blame on this government when the members opposite know, and I know, that fiscal and monetary policies of that nature are federal.

Mr. MacDonald: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The Treasurer has deliberately avoided answering the question.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary of the Treasurer. Would he not agree that the fact that in this province less than one per cent of our budget is allocated for agricultural programs is a clear indication that the province, and the government of the province, is not sufficiently concerned with the problems the farmers have and, in fact, he is not listening to his Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Henderson) or, perhaps, the minister is not speaking loudly enough to the government members, who don’t seem to understand that there has to be the allocation of some funds in this regard?

Hon. F. S. Miller: It’s interesting to note that when the Minister of Agriculture and Food read the statistics on federal grants to farmers in three provinces -- I believe he did that very recently -- it showed that the grants in Ontario per farmer were somewhere in the $400 range and in Quebec, they were in the $3,000 range. That’s a supplement the member supports.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: What steps will the government of Ontario take in order to provide credit at modest terms to farmers in view of the fact that every other province in Canada now provides that kind of credit assistance for farmers, and recognizing, as this province has yet to do, that lower-rate credit for farmers not only helps farmers but also helps to keep the cost of food down to the consumer?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the cost has to come up somewhere. I think the one thing the member’s party has never recognized is that a subsidy in one area costs somewhere else. That’s one of the major problems. The interest-rate problem has potential for cost that we believe has to be shared with the federal government. Ontario stands ready to work with that government.

Mr. Riddell: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: If the Treasurer agrees with me that the farming industry is still the basic and prime industry in Ontario and that agriculture provides 20 per cent of the jobs and relies directly on the farmer, why is it so difficult to come up with $25 million to help the farmers in 1980 when he can come up with $28 million overnight for the Ford Motor Company of Canada Limited to establish one of its plants in Windsor?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, in a total budget of around $16 billion, we are providing money on many fronts. Yet day after day, in my estimates debates, the Liberal Party consistently tells us we spend too much money on support programs. I don’t understand how the honourable member can say both things.

Interjections.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Final supplementary, the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart).

Mr. Swart: Does the Treasurer not realize, Mr. Speaker, that Statistics Canada has indicated there will be a general reduction in net farm income estimated this year at some 12 per cent and in Ontario at 40 per cent? Shouldn’t this encourage him to put in a special plan for Ontario to have a system which does not give less than the other provinces do to the farmers?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the members opposite have all assumed we are not concerned about the problem. That is totally wrong. We are very concerned about the problem. The thing is to have a solution that is effective and does not multiply the problem. We have been trying to sort some of these problems out at the proper level of government. Ontario stands ready to share a number of things with the federal government, but not necessarily to go it alone.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second question, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. S. Smith).

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Hundreds of farmers have driven down to hear this question answered. I think the chair should please consider the fact that they want some answers on this very important question our leader asked. I think we should have more supplementaries on it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is, I suppose, a type of a point of order. I will consider the suggestion from the member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent). However, I have taken into consideration that this matter will be discussed at a later time in the operation of the House this afternoon. Second question, the Leader of the Opposition.

Hon. F. S. Miller: But on this special day, on his 65th birthday, the member should be allowed a supplementary.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Treasurer has suggested that the House give consideration to the member for Grey-Bruce. Do I have the agreement of the House to allow the member to ask a supplementary?

Interjections.

Mr. Sargent: When I get my first pension cheque, I will buy you all a drink.

Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Treasurer and the Premier (Mr. Davis) have been bragging that they are too proud to accept a $500-million equalization payment from Ottawa, why should they allow thousands of farmers and small businessmen to go down the drain in this province because of pride? They can’t take pride to the bank. What are you going to do about this disastrous situation? We had a meeting the other night with 500 farmers --

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The question has been asked.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I hate to be political on the honourable member’s birthday, but the first Telex I got from the Minister of Finance was that he was retroactively bringing Bill C-26 back into action, which cut Ontario off from any chance of equalization payments.

Interjections.

2:20 p.m.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Just a second now. For some time Ontario has been trying consistently to renegotiate a reasonable redivision of the moneys flowing through this country. It recognized there are problems. Five hundred and seventy million dollars is owed to us. Three billion dollars has flowed to the seven recipient provinces per year. One half of that, $1.5 billion, goes to our neighbours to the east in Quebec. Not a cent goes to Ontario and we wouldn’t get it retroactively from the federal Liberal government even if we tried.

Mr. S. Smith: That is the height of hypocrisy because the minister knows he favoured that.

Mr. Rotenberg: It takes one to know one.

Mr. S. Smith: Now that the Treasurer and I have been painted with the same brush by the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Rotenberg), we have a certain kinship in this regard, at least in the eyes of that honourable member.

FORD AGREEMENT

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller): Are there any agreements, memoranda or letters between the government and the Ford Motor Company of Canada Limited setting out the terms under which the government of Ontario provided $28 million to Ford to build a new engine plant in Windsor? If there are such agreements, memoranda or letters, will the Treasurer agree to table those documents as soon as possible?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Yes, there are, Mr. Speaker, and yes, I am prepared to table them.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, I would appreciate it if the Treasurer would table them today, if he can. I can appreciate it may take a little time.

Can the Treasurer tell the House if those documents confirm what the Treasurer stated in this Legislature March 29 last year. I quote his statement at that time. He said: “This new plant will represent a net direct addition to total employment in the area of 2,600 jobs.” Is that statement in fact confirmed in the agreement?

Hon. F. S. Miller: No, it is not, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question: Perhaps the Treasurer could answer this on behalf of the government. In view of his willingness to be forthcoming with the agreement between the government and Ford Motor Company, could he explain why the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) said that after taking legal advice he would in fact table the agreement? That was several months ago and he has not yet done so. When will this government put that on the table and why isn’t it before us now, in view of the promises that were made before?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, governments make many agreements between parties, not all of which are put out in the public domain. Yet, in checking this agreement and asking for legal advice, I could find no reason for its not being in the public domain, nor any legal impediment to doing so.

In that case, and since it doesn’t divulge matters which are confidential, I would rather the House have the opportunity to look at it than assume there was something in it that was not correct.

Mr. S. Smith: The Treasurer now admits his statement of March 29, 1979, in this House is not in accordance with the agreement his government signed -- I understood him to say that. Would the Treasurer please explain to this House whether, when he said, “The new plant will represent a net direct addition to total employment in the area of 2,600 jobs,” he was simply mistaken or was in any way misled in his understanding of the agreement, or whether he knew what the agreement said but was simply engaging in a certain degree of wishful thinking?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I would like to look at the exact words in Hansard. I don’t think I tried to imply the agreement required that. I think we were saying that that was the number of jobs that were created by that particular investment. That was only roughly half the total number of jobs.

I have to point out to my honourable colleague that the number of jobs that are being created in that area, because of that plant being there, is 2,600.

Mr. S. Smith: It is right there; read it.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I can read and I gladly will. The idea that the number of people working at any one point in the automotive industry stays constant is one I am sure members will recognize as not accurate.

What I tried to say the other day in this House was that we are at a very low point in automotive production. I am told, for example, that Ford’s production in Canada is down 21 per cent this year from last year. It is down 24 per cent in the United States. We have actually stayed somewhat ahead of the Americans in that area. The whole automotive industry has gone through cycles forever. The fact remains that when that factory is functioning we will have that many more employees than we would have had without it.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I would like to redirect my question to the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman). I would ask the minister if it was his understanding that there were any, if not written commitments, certainly oral commitments from Ford that these jobs would be in addition to the present work force in Windsor? If so, what has he done over the last couple of weeks to talk to the Ford Motor Company and put pressure on that company to maintain the jobs in the casting plant in Windsor? What has he done and how much notice has Ford given him about the closure of this plant?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: With regard to the first part of the question, my interpretation and reading of the document conform with that of the Treasurer’s. Discussions are going to go on among ourselves, Ottawa and the Ford Motor Company of Canada Limited to try to ascertain just what was implied in the contract.

I think it is fair to point out that with the situation in the Ford Motor Company operations in the United States where some 45,000 people have been laid off, it’s rather difficult for anyone to suggest that it was foreseeable two years ago that today there would be 45,000 people laid off in one car company alone in the United States. We can’t foresee all those things. Indeed, if the American auto industry, governments or the UAW had been able to foresee this kind of market situation, the technology would have been mounted two years back to meet the market conditions today. It wasn’t that easy to predict.

With regard to the second and third parts of the question, I had a meeting with Roy Bennett, the president of Ford Motor Company of Canada Limited, a week ago today in my office at which time we discussed a whole range of matters including this one. At that time he updated me on the discussions going on.

I should remind the House that as of today, Ford Motor Company still has not reached a decision to close that plant. This is not to say it will or will not make that decision. I only remind the member that the decision has not yet been taken by the Ford Motor Company and I asked Mr. Bennett to come to my office last week to discuss specifically that matter and a whole range of other matters.

I should caution the House at this time that I suspect we are going to see more layoffs in the auto industry ever the next few months. The situation will likely get worse before it gets better. I do firmly believe, as do all of the motor companies, the car companies and the auto parts industry, the situation will get dramatically better in the next couple of years. But let’s be honest and open with ourselves: The situation is not going to improve in the next couple of months.

We spoke to Mr. Bennett about it, impressed upon him the importance of giving us the opportunity to have input in that decision, and stressed upon him the importance of keeping that plant open if at all possible. He undertook to keep us informed on a day-to-day basis with regard to the decisions of Ford Motor Company over the ensuing days. He has met that undertaking. My ministry officials in my absence over the last couple of days have spoken to Ford Motor Company daily, as recently as this morning. We will continue to keep on top of the situation and press upon them the importance of trying to find a resolution for this matter in favour of Ontario.

Mr. B. Newman: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: On Tuesday, April 1, I asked the question: “Can the minister assure us that none of the machinery or equipment at the Ford foundry” -- that is the casting plant -- “is being transferred at this time to the United States? Can he assure us that the 2,600 jobs at the Essex plant of the Ford Motor Company will be 2,600 jobs in addition to these that are currently working on the Ford casting plant?”

2:30 p.m.

The minister replied: “I can tell the member the answer to his first question is that those kinds of movements” -- that is, referring to the movement of equipment out of that plant -- “are not now occurring and that those layoffs are not happening.”

My wife has received half a dozen phone calls at my house indicating that machinery, equipment, dies and so forth currently are being transferred to the United States. Once that equipment is transferred, we can rest assured Ford will not put that plant in operation again. Can the minister assure us that is not taking place?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, our information, which I believe to be quite accurate, indicates the press reports upon which the honourable member based his question last week were accurate; that is, tools and dies only, and only some of them, had been moved to Michigan to do some testing back at the head office operation. Obviously they have not moved any of the --

Mr. M. Davidson: What do you mean “only”? What else is there?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I acknowledged last week, I might say, that Ford Motor Company obviously was testing the equipment with regard to the company-wide plans to reallocate some of its equipment; that applies not only to the Windsor plant, but also to a whole range of plants throughout the United States. I indicated the tools and dies had been taken there for testing. The heavy equipment there obviously is still in place, because the plant is still operating as of today.

I repeat to the honourable member that the mere fact Ford Motor Company has not, as of today, moved out the heavy equipment as yet, as some people fear, indicates it has not made a decision to close down that plant. I want to make it absolutely clear, we do not suggest that tools and dies have not been moved. I indicated that last week; the press report was accurate. Indeed, we are concerned about that. Hence, my request to meet with Mr. Bennett; and he came in to see us.

ASSISTANCE TO FORD

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question for the Premier (Mr. Davis), arising out of a trip to Windsor which I made yesterday with a number of my colleagues from the federal and provincial NDP caucus to see what is happening in the auto industry. If I might, Mr. Speaker, I would say that while we are very concerned about what is happening in Windsor, I am even more depressed by the subservient attitude the government is taking in view of the unemployment and layoffs occurring in the auto industry.

My question to the Premier is this: Given that two years ago the Premier said Ontario was providing assistance to Ford Motor Company, not because it believed in incentives to the automobile companies, but because it had come to the conclusion that the money had to be given owing to the jobs involved; and since it is clear now that with the closing of the casting plant there will be more jobs lost or more layoffs at Ford than will be created at the new engine plant; will the Premier say what steps the government intends to take to ensure that the 2,600 new jobs, to which he referred in August 1978 in connection with the engine plant’s construction, are new jobs in fact and not simply replacement jobs for jobs that now are being phased out?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, one has to look at this both historically and in the light of the current situation.

Mr. Laughren: Go back to 1965.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, not back that far. As I recall the discussions at the time, the government of Ontario and the then government of Canada -- now the present government of Canada -- made a decision to assist Ford Canada. It was done on the very simple basis that if we had not, that particular plant, which represents close to $600 million worth of investment, would have been located at another geographic location, probably Lima, Ohio. That fact is really without dispute, and there is no question that was the intent of the government.

The honourable member can question that decision, but I have to tell him this, and I say this very objectively: If we had not made such a decision, the problems they face in Windsor and the expectation as to their resolution with respect to employment six months, a year or two years down the road, would be far worse than they are today.

If I were a member from Windsor, I would be not grateful; that’s not the right word -- I would recognize the decision that was made to assist Ford Canada was a great plus then and an even greater plus now in the light of what is happening to the automotive industry generally.

When that decision was made -- I know the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) has very great foresight -- the automotive industry generally did not anticipate the downturn it is now facing. I will take a lot of blame in terms of government policy for some things, but I will not accept the responsibility for people not purchasing automobiles, nor will I accept responsibility for the fact that an increasing number of people are purchasing automobiles made outside this continent. I won’t accept responsibility for that. I don’t dictate that policy.

The reality is that the automotive industry is going through a difficult period. In terms of the Ford plant and the investment the taxpayers made in it, I would be very upset if at this moment we were facing the Windsor situation knowing that that $500-million to $600-million plant and 2,600 jobs were being created in a state of the union rather than in Ontario.

Hindsight is a great thing, but I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, I am very thankful we made the decision when we did, or the situation would be far more difficult than that which we are facing today.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary question: Since the Premier talks about the responsibility of his government, is he prepared to take the responsibility to ensure that giant multinational corporations don’t take away with one hand what they are being paid by the taxpayers to provide with the other? Specifically, will the Premier undertake that in future, if the government decides to advance any further money into this industry or other industries in order to help to create jobs, it will ensure there are guarantees that no old jobs will be taken away at the time the new jobs are being created?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Unlike the leader of the New Democratic Party, I don’t have that sort of divine power to create a market situation. What I can do, and what we have done, is to make it abundantly clear that moneys were advanced by this government -- and this was made clear to Ford -- in anticipation of the creation of new job opportunities.

I think it is fair to state -- and I am not here defending Ford, multinationals or anyone else --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s all right. Listen, you people don’t sing the same tune when you are back home in Windsor. You people don’t sing the same tune when you are at official openings. Neither do the people in the Liberal Party sing this tune when they are in Windsor talking to their own constituents. You don’t say this when you are talking to the UAW membership; you don’t say this sort of thing when you are there present with them. I happen to know that some of you have said the government was right in supporting Ford’s creation of this new plant.

Mr. Speaker, what I can’t do for the leader of the New Democratic Party is guarantee what the car market is going to be. This much I can say: If the car market historically had remained this year and last year as it has been for the last five years there would be no problem in Windsor; in fact, there would be 2,600 new jobs being created because of the foresight of this government and this situation wouldn’t have occurred. I can’t guarantee the market; I wish I could, but I can’t.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to redirect a supplementary to the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller). In view of the statement that the Premier has just given about the high number of foreign cars being sold, and in view of the Treasurer’s public musings about his suspicion of dumping by the Japanese car manufacturers, has he requested an official inquiry by the combines investigation branch or by the dumping authorities in Ottawa to look into this matter, in view of the fears he has expressed?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I don’t think I could say I have officially requested it, but in my letter to Mr. MacEachen I did allude to the problem and suggest we had great reservations about this and we would like to see something done. I also followed that up much more bluntly and openly in our discussions with him -- I don’t mean bluntly to him, but in terms of the problems -- and I did answer some questions from the press when I was in Ottawa that day about the 25 to 30 per cent, or whatever it is, of the Canadian car market currently occupied by foreign products.

I simply say that we in this country have lived by the spirit and intent of GATT negotiations. At the same time, we have seen other countries, through nontariff barriers, virtually prevent our products from going there. I think we have a very common front here and something needs to be said about it.

2:40 p.m.

Interjection.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Who in fact controls importation in this country? Not the province of Ontario; it is the federal government, and the member knows it.

At the same time I did point out to them and asked the companies involved why this doesn’t happen. If the documentation is there that Japanese cars are $400 to $600 less in Ontario than they are in the United States, why can’t something be done?

Their argument is that the present requirements at the federal level are such that it would take two or three years to prove a case and even then their chances are poor. That is exactly why I suggested some of the requirements by Mr. MacEachen.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, if I can redirect back to the Premier, I would report to him the sense of outrage that exists in Windsor over the impending closure of the Ford castings plant and the feeling everywhere we went in Windsor that this is a breach of faith by Ford Motor Company, particularly after having received the $6 million in federal and provincial money, or whatever they received of that up until now. Is this government prepared to take any remaining sums that were to have been paid to Ford and urge the federal government as well to take any sums that it has yet to pay to Ford and put that money into a special fund, making it clear that money will not be released until Ford agrees to rescind its plans to close the castings plant with a loss of 850 more jobs?

Mr. Ruston: I asked the Treasurer that on Tuesday.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member asked the Treasurer on Tuesday? I’m delighted he asked it.

Mr. Roy: He didn’t answer either.

Hon. Mr. Davis: He didn’t answer it either? Mr. Speaker, I intend to answer.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I know you are very nonpartisan but your former colleagues are really being very obstreperous today. They are interjecting a great deal.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Just disregard the interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Do you disregard them, Mr. Speaker?

In answer to that supplementary question, this government has been in almost daily communication with Ford of Canada. They are very aware of our concern about the casting plant. They are very aware of our concern about the state of the automotive industry generally and the desire we have, in this government, to protect as many jobs as we possibly can. This has been communicated to the head of Ford of Canada and to members of his staff.

I think it would be very premature to suggest that we get into a situation of penalty or what have you. We are looking for solutions both in the short- and the long-term with respect to Windsor and the automotive industry generally.

METRO DAY-CARE SURVEY

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question for the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Norton), arising out of the survey of day care in Metropolitan Toronto which was completed recently by the Metropolitan Toronto Social Planning Council. In view of the findings of that survey that there are 2,500 parents with kids on waiting lists for day care in Metropolitan Toronto and that there are 3,600 inquiries every month by people desperately looking for a place where they can get day care for their children so that they can have two incomes that they need to survive, can the minister say what plans the government has to provide an adequate amount of day care this coming year in Metropolitan Toronto and elsewhere in the province?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to comment on the specific document to which the honourable member refers since I have not yet received a copy of that. I have requested a copy. It had been the practice previously when such reports were being made public that they often sent a copy to me slightly in advance of its public release so that I would be aware of it. For some reason that did not occur this time.

However, in response generally to the honourable member’s question I think that he ought to bear in mind that the implications -- at least if the press reports are accurate in terms of what that says -- of that report are quite incorrect. It suggests there is some reduction in commitment on the part of this government to the provision of day care. In fact, we have annually, over the last three years, had increases in the funding for day care in excess of 12 per cent. In the 1979-80 fiscal year, the increase in funding for day care was 12.5 per cent greater than the previous year.

This year we are projecting an increase of 12.9 per cent in the funding for day care, which will raise the total expenditures in the course of this present fiscal year to almost $48 million. I suggest at a time when in other provinces in this country there are reductions in the number of spaces provided for children in day care, this province stands well in advance of other jurisdictions in Canada by continuing to increase the commitment to day care.

In fact, my expectation is this year we will increase the number of spaces by between 700 and 800, at a time when it would appear that in other parts of the country the number of places are being absolutely reduced. The overall situation in Canada is that there is a reduction in the number of day-care spaces, but that is not the case in Ontario. Ontario continues to expand the service in the communities across this province.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Would the minister not agree that what Ontario is doing is running to stay far behind, and that nothing is being done to match the demand that exists among families and single parents who need day care, specifically since Metro social services tells us that only 65 new day-care places were created in Metro Toronto last year? Since, by that measure, it would take 40 years of provision of day care to catch up with the waiting list that exists today, can the minister say whether or not the government intends to take the vigorous kind of action that’s required in order to meet today’s day-care needs today? Specifically, will he take day care out of the welfare system and argue for it to be put in the educational system in vacant classrooms so we can provide adequate day care when it’s needed, which is now?

Hon. Mr. Norton: There are actually quite a few questions in that question. I am not sure whether I can remember them all at this point.

I think, first of all, I would refute, and I think I need say no more than that the assumption that the member has put forward, that day care is part of the welfare system in this province, is totally erroneous. It is misleading the public for the member to suggest that.

With respect to the numbers of spaces, I can’t, without having had the benefit of knowing where they got their data, confirm whether, in fact, 65 is an accurate figure or not. It seems to me to be extremely low, although I would suggest to the honourable member that it is not the province which funds specific day-care spaces. We fund the municipalities and on the basis of our budgetary increases to them, they make the purchases of service.

What has happened in some municipalities, and I am very unhappy about this, is there are subsidies being given to very-high-income families. In fact, I suggest in some instances that is causing the family in greater need to go without. The policy of one municipality in this province has led to subsidies going to families with incomes in excess of $75,000, and that is in the leader of the NDP’s municipality, in the Ottawa area. He should check with his municipality. The municipalities have a responsibility, I suggest, to ensure that the --

Mr. Cassidy: And so do you.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Certainly we have, and we are discharging ours. I think they ought to be sure they engage a more equitable and fair distribution of the limited resources that are available. We are providing resources at substantial rates of increase over previous years. Each year we are doing that. The municipalities have a responsibility as well to ensure the distribution of that at the municipal level is equitable. I cannot assume that responsibility for them.

Mr. S. Smith: If I could I’d like to redirect a supplementary to the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller): Will the Treasurer consider bringing in tax incentives for businesses that will establish day-care centres on their premises for their employees? Does he not think that the time has come for incentives of this kind, which would enable the larger industries to have day-care centres on their premises for the children of their employees?

Hon. F. S. Miller: In the normal course of events within the cabinet, a process with which I assume the member will never become familiar, we have a mechanism by which a policy field reviews things. I would expect a recommendation from that minister to me and then we would give the money if such sum was required.

2:50 p.m.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, we’d rather have day care in schools than in factories.

I’d like to redirect a question to the Minister of Community and Social Services with respect to his statement that day care is not a welfare service. I ask the minister how he expects an average-income family to afford day care, since the subsidy is only available to low-income people who go down to the welfare office and fill out a means test.

How does the minister expect an average- income family to afford day-care fees of as much as $240 a month, which is what was quoted to me today by one of the commercial centres in Toronto, or $210 a month, which is what Metro municipal day-care centres charge?

An hon. member: Per child?

Mr. McClellan: Two hundred and ten dollars per month per child. How does the minister expect an average-income family to afford a fee like that under his subsidy structure?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I think the point is simple. There are limited resources available, as is always the case in the provision of services on the part of the government. We do not have an unlimited amount of resources.

Mr. Laughren: It’s the priorities that are wrong.

Hon. Mr. Norton: No, I think the priorities are right. When limited resources are available it is important that they be applied first to those who are in greatest need.

If the position of the member’s party is to refuse that and ignore the fact that there are people whose needs are greater than others, then I’m sorry, I cannot subscribe to the member’s philosophy. I believe the responsible position is to ensure that people in greatest need receive assistance first. There is simply no way that the resources --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Norton: The member may advocate that it be universal and free. I suspect that is his official position. That is unrealistic. The resources do not exist in our society at this time to take that approach.

NIAGARA RIVER POLLUTION

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I’ve a question of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Parrott). Is the minister aware of the fact that the Department of Environmental Conservation in New York state has granted a licence to SCA Chemical Waste Service Incorporated to dump a million gallons of treated effluent into the Niagara River? Is he aware that neither he nor officials from his ministry attended those hearings?

I wonder if he would respond to an article that appeared in the Niagara Falls paper, as it relates to the concerns of the people of Niagara-on-the-Lake and along the Niagara River about the quality of the water.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Would you please place your question.

Mr. Kerrio: I placed it at the start. I said “Is the minister aware?” The article says: “The beginning of the end to Niagara-on-the- Lake’s water-supply problem appears as close as the end of the year. Additional, unexpected grants by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment should save the Niagara region almost enough to pay for $3.2-million trunk water projects to connect the town with the Depew water treatment plant.” How does the minister respond to that?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: You said you asked your question at the first: “Is the minister aware?”

Mr. Kerrio: How does the minister respond now that he is going to pay to pipe water to Niagara-on-the-Lake?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker: I think there were three questions. The answer to the first two is yes. In reply to the third question, I would be glad to supply the information to the member, and not only relative to the region of Niagara. There were many other municipalities that we were able to fund with grants that will let them have an increased water supply and improved sewage treatment. I will be glad to give him all that information.

Mr. Kerrio: Is it the Minister of the Environment’s idea of responsibility just to keep going further upstream to get clean water?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I don’t think this one is upstream. The member is talking about water supply and that’s in another area. As I visit with the federal minister, I’ll be waiting for him to decide what action he is going to take, now that the member has made such a strong presentation to him.

CHALK RIVER REACTOR CLEANUP

Ms. Gigantes: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie). I would like to ask the Minister of Labour whether he will investigate reports by the Ottawa Citizen and the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility concerning multiple cancers in two men, Bjarnie Paulson and Ken McOrmand, who are among the group of more than 550 men who were involved in the cleanup and decontamination of the 1958 accident at the NRU reactor in Chalk River? Will he report to this House concerning the medical follow-up which federal authorities did, or failed to do, in order to determine the incidence of cancer among these hundreds of men?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I will see whether it is a matter that falls within my constitutional jurisdiction. If it does, I will be pleased to make inquiries into it.

Ms. Gigantes: As the federal authorities have given no indication of a concern or willingness to initiate a comprehensive epidemiological study of the men who participated in the cleanup of the contamination -- and that was confirmed to me by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited a few minutes ago -- will the minister undertake to establish a provincial investigation in line with his responsibility for the health and safety of workers in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: As the honourable member can appreciate, there is a constitutional distribution of powers in this country. The issue of radiation is one in which the federal government has asserted its jurisdiction. Having in mind that fact of life, I will be glad to make inquiries.

Ms. Gigantes: Is this minister content to tell us that, because the federal government has assumed ultimate responsibility, he will assume none when the federal government fails?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I did not say that at any time. I simply said, as the honourable member and other members of this House know, that the federal government has clearly asserted its authority in the area of radiation. I said I will make the inquiries that she has requested. I have never displayed any lack of interest in problems related to occupational disease.

FORD AGREEMENT

Hon. F. S. Miller: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. S. Smith) kindly sent me a copy of Hansard for March 29, 1979, implying that the contract for Ford Motor Company of Canada Limited had a clause in it that related to the number of jobs, and claimed that I had said so. The words he gave me --

Mr. S. Smith: No, I never said it was in the contract.

Hon. F. S. Miller: That’s what I thought the Leader of the Opposition implied.

Hon. Mr. Davis: He just hinted at it.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I’m trying to clarify the record. While I said that, I did not say the contract said it. That’s why I checked the record.

While I’m on my feet on the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I was also intrigued at that time, when we announced the number of jobs in Windsor, to hear the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Cooke) say, “You don’t even have the skilled workers in that area. You are blind.”

EQUIPMENT PROCUREMENT

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell). Given this government’s commitment to a buy-Ontario policy for procurement, is the minister aware that the new Ottawa Health Sciences Centre, to be opened later this year, has undertaken, for the purpose of procuring all equipment for that new facility, contracts in the order of $5 million to $6 million with an American purchasing agent? As a result of that initiative, major Canadian manufacturers and suppliers have not been notified of the tendering process. The few who have been notified were not able to meet the deadline.

Is the minister aware of that situation? If he is, what did he do when he was presented by the Canadian Surgical Trade Association with that unhappy set of circumstances many weeks ago?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The matter was raised many months ago, Mr. Speaker. At the time, we were in touch with the executive director -- if that’s his title -- Jean-Pierre Kingsley of the new Ottawa Health Sciences Centre. We were satisfied that all proper procedures in tendering had been followed. There was nothing improper at all.

The member will understand that with some rare or sophisticated pieces of equipment sometimes there are no Canadian suppliers. The very nature of the equipment requires buying from abroad because there isn’t a Canadian supplier. I don’t recall all the detailed information, but I’ll be glad to get that for the member, including dates, who talked to whom, et cetera. I’ll get that to the member as soon as possible.

3 p.m.

Mr. Conway: The Canadian Surgical Trade Association indicated to me that much of the argument about its members not being able to meet this Ottawa situation is absolutely nonsensical; that, in fact, they can meet most or all, in terms of quality and cost-competitiveness. Where does this leave the buy-Ontario policy?

Did the minister direct the Ottawa Health Services Centre in what it might do in meeting that stated government policy? More specifically, will the Minister of Health, in conjunction with his friend the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman), undertake to report to me and members of this House: how many Canadian companies submitted bids on any of those equipment contracts; how many of the contracts went to Canadian companies and of what total value; the reasons, such as they were, for rejection of Canadian bids, if any were submitted; and a list of Canadian companies qualified to submit bids on those contracts, assuming that the government still believes in the buy-Ontario program?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: First of all, let me correct the honourable member, as he has obviously not been reading the ads. We are promoting Canadianism; we are not balkanizing this country; we believe in Canada.

Second, it is interesting that the honourable member who has so often, in the public accounts committee or the social development committee, stressed local autonomy and local responsibility for the operation of hospitals, now suggests that the ministry should somehow operate every function of every hospital. Isn’t that interesting? It is the old story of his party: “Here are my principles; if you don’t like them, I have others.”

I have already indicated I will remind myself of the fact that it happened a number of months ago, and convey that to the member and to the House. We were satisfied, though, on investigation and discussions with the hospital and with the association, that they did follow all proper proceedings.

EVICTION OF TENANT

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, has the Minister of Housing (Mr. Bennett) received correspondence from the Sudbury legal clinic on behalf of a Mrs. Valeda Timmins, a 71-year-old pensioner who is a resident of a senior citizens’ apartment in Sudbury and is being evicted because of arrears of $2,460 in her rent?

Is the minister aware the arrears were learned of after Mrs. Timmins received a form letter from the Sudbury Housing Authority indicating that Workmen’s Compensation Board pensions are considered income for calculating rental rates, and on learning that Mrs. Timmins herself went down to indicate that she had a $127 pension? They are now trying to evict her or to get the $2,400 back.

Would the minister intervene personally and tell the Sudbury Housing Authority to back off and not to deprive this woman of the little bit of savings she has in the bank and evict her from her apartment?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, on the first part of the question, no, I have not received a letter from the legal clinic in Sudbury. Secondly, I will be glad to review the case in all aspects to make sure the individual is being dealt with fairly and honestly and under the terms of reference of rent-geared-to-income housing in Ontario.

Mr. Martel: The incident occurred through this woman’s misunderstanding. Because a WCB pension is not considered income for tax purposes, this confusion arose. Immediately on learning the facts she went to disclose the oversight. Doesn’t the minister think he can intervene and ask the Sudbury Housing Authority to write this off, because there has really been no loss of income?

At the same time, would the minister indicate to us whether he is prepared to have the Sudbury Housing Authority provide its policy booklet to some of the advocates in the Sudbury area, such as the legal clinic, so they would know what in God’s name the Sudbury Housing Authority is doing on occasion?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I am not about to jump to conclusions in the whole case. The member speaks of certain aspects of which I am not aware. Nor do I want to try to establish the validity of the particular case in this House without the background information.

We try to deal with the people who are in public housing, whether it be for seniors or families, on a fair and equitable basis across the province. Indeed, the tenant knows very well the terms of reference of occupancy of our units when she makes application, indeed, on the annual filing of her income, whether it be from sources other than the direct Canada Pension or supplementary pension.

The terms of reference of how one calculates his or her rent geared to income is spelled out very clearly. It is available to anyone who wants it. I suggest, without trying to determine the validity of the case here this afternoon, I will review it. I am not about to give the Sudbury Housing Authority instructions to write off any amount of money until I know the facts exactly, any more than I would to an authority in any other region in the province.

TOURISM ASSISTANCE

Mr. Van. Horne: I have a question to the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman), Mr. Speaker.

I hate to interrupt the minister, who is planning a trip with his colleague, but I would like to say that in his recently announced Tourism Redevelopment Incentive Program, his qualifying factors did not include regional differences or prioritizing, according to districts. In other words, all parts of the province are supposed to be treated equally.

How then does the minister explain the statement of the ministry’s London branch office, which incidentally was at the top of the list in this rather slick brochure the ministry put out, to a motel owner who inquired about the program, that London didn’t qualify because it is not considered by the ministry as a tourist area?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Obviously, I would want to investigate the facts behind that, Mr. Speaker, before I comment on the remarks of any of my staff or, more accurately, the alleged remarks of any of my staff.

For the honourable member’s information and for the information of his constituent, may I say TRIP is essentially set out to increase our accommodation of tourist facilities basically for those types of operations that can become four-season operations outside the major cities.

Inside a major city they are eligible but, in terms of the selectivity of the program and how we are going to allocate the money, I want to make it quite clear that there is a preference given to the smaller operation needing a lot of assistance to expand in a more dramatic way for vacations in rural and semi-urban areas, rather than, for example, to structure a program under which, say, the Royal York Hotel might qualify. The Royal York Hotel is not the kind of operation we are looking to support through TRIP.

There is a grey area, and it is not accidental, but we will sort out that situation with the member’s constituent and our field staff.

Mr. Van Horne: I would submit to the minister that his brochure is a little misleading, because it indicates money would be available for upgrading, renovation and expansion of facilities where those investments are likely to succeed. There is no indication of any other qualifying factor. If it is true, that should be made very clear to all the ministry’s regional offices. Would the minister not agree?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will check the instructions that have gone out to our regional offices to make sure the information getting out to applicants is quite clear. I will try to clarify that for the member.

I should emphasize, of course, that brochure is meant to indicate the general area under which people may qualify and be eligible. That does not mean they will be accepted under TRIP as being the kind of particular resort operation we wish to support. They are eligible, but that does not mean they qualify for assistance.

REPORT

STANDING GENERAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE

Mr. Cureatz from the standing general government committee presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr4, An Act respecting the Midland Young Men’s Christian Association.

Bill Pr8, An Act respecting the City of St. Catharines.

Bill Pr10, An Act respecting the Township of Cumberland and the Township of Gloucester.

Your committee would recommend that the fees, less the actual cost of printing, be remitted on Bill Pr4, An Act respecting the Midland Young Men’s Christian Association.

Report adopted.

3:10 p.m.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

INSURED HEALTH SERVICES ACT

Mr. Martel moved first reading of Bill 40, An Act respecting Insured Services under the Ontario Health Insurance Plan.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to declare that surgical procedures for breast reconstruction are insured services under the Ontario Health Insurance Plan.

CITY OF BRANTFORD ACT

Mr. Makarchuk moved first reading of Bill Pr11, An Act respecting the City of Brantford.

Motion agreed to.

ANSWERS TO QUESTONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the answers to questions 50, 51, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 62, 63, 97, 98, 99, 100 and 101, and the interim answer to question 19 standing on the Notice Paper.

MOTION

MOTION TO SUSPEND NORMAL BUSINESS

Mr. Cassidy moved, pursuant to standing order 34, that the ordinary business of the House be set aside to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely, the unemployment crisis in the Windsor-Essex area as evidenced by the 22,000 unemployed, the 2,600 layoffs at Ford, the 5,100 jobs lost at Chrysler, the 2,000 jobs lost in auto parts and the imminent closure of the Ford casting plant in spite of the $68-million grant from the government of Canada and the government of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: The notice required by the standing orders was given, and I am prepared to listen to the honourable member for up to five minutes.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, with the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Cooke) and the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Bounsall), along with Bob Rae, Ian Deans and Sid Parker of the federal New Democratic Party caucus, I spent a day talking to auto workers, to the mayor’s committee on unemployment and to social service agencies and other people concerned with what is happening in Windsor.

I do not think the government appreciates the seriousness of the situation in Windsor. The current unemployment rate is approximately 20 per cent. In January, there were 1,700 new registrants for unemployment insurance; in February, there were 910 registrants.

When we talked to the unions, we were told that at Ford there now are 2,269 workers on indefinite layoff and a further 850 will be added to that number if the castings plant is shut down, as has been widely rumoured. There are 1,500 of those workers who have run out of both their supplementary unemployment benefits and their unemployment insurance benefits.

At Chrysler, which had 10,000 workers at work less than two years ago, there will be only 1,800 workers on the job as of this week because of the four-week shutdown of the assembly plant which is casting a further 4,500 Chrysler workers out of their jobs.

We met with the social service agencies, who told us about a 34 per cent increase in welfare applications at the beginning of this year. They told us about problems with family benefits assistance. They told us of the problems with family crises and the mental health problems. One of the people there told of going to a psychiatric ward in a Windsor hospital; of 23 beds, 21 were occupied by Chrysler workers who had been put into an unstable mental position because of the family crises that had been induced by the layoffs there.

In short, we are calling for an emergency debate because the situation in Windsor is too serious to be ignored by the Legislature of Ontario and because we believe that Ontario has got to come up with a tough policy to bring the multinational automobile corporations into line and get them to stop victimizing automobile workers in a city the size of Windsor here in Ontario.

I am distressed by the attitude of the government. When we raise questions we find that the so-called new jobs that were promised two years ago turn out to be replacement jobs -- if we are lucky. We find that the agreement that was reached with Ford, which the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) has not tabled up until now, contains no guarantees about protection of old jobs. We find that the ministry is keeping in close touch with Ford so that they will know the exact time, place and date when a further 850 jobs in the casting plant go down the drain. We say it is about time the government started to protect jobs rather than watching idly from the sidelines as they go down.

This is exacerbated by the $68 million in assistance which has been given to Ford. Clearly, that is the most expensive job-creation program in Ontario’s history. It may be followed, if we don’t watch out, by provincial or federal guarantees to Chrysler Canada which could have the same kind of tragic consequences in terms of failing to create jobs.

There are a number of specific reasons why we need an emergency debate on the auto situation in Windsor, and why we need it now. First, there is the lack of action by the provincial government to provide relief to the workers who are unemployed right now. There are 22,000 of them in the Windsor area.

The second reason is the need for the province to provide support for social services in Windsor which are being pressed to the wall because of the situations with which they are having to cope. We are saying that if the government of Ontario can find $28 million as Ontario’s share of a grant to the Ford Motor Company, surely Ontario is able to provide emergency assistance to the social service agencies that are having to cope with the consequences of Ford Motor Company layoffs, which now are numbered in the thousands.

We raise the issue and ask for an emergency debate because of the impending closure of the Ford casting plant and because of our unease and the unease across the province that the government will continue to fail to get our fair share of investment under the auto pact which should be coming into Canada as part of the retooling and technological change in the automobile industry. We ask for an emergency debate because of the need to reverse the trade deficit which is causing such a loss in jobs in Canada and here in Ontario, where most of the automobile industry is located.

If the government had said today it was prepared to insist that Chrysler and Ford would bring production and jobs into Canada so they were not in deficit to their commitments under the auto pact, this emergency debate might not be necessary. But up until now, with all the problems we know of, there has been no action. We need an emergency debate to try to get action now from the government. The people of Windsor demand and deserve nothing less.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, we in the Liberal Party certainly want to see this debate proceed. We believe that Windsor has become a scene of economic calamity, a scene which we have the requirement here in the Legislature to speak about and to take action about.

In deference to the fact that a good many people from other parts of Ontario, particularly involved with agriculture and certain other areas, have journeyed to the Legislature today, my understanding is that there has been some agreement struck among the parties that, should this emergency debate proceed, it might proceed later in the day, which I think would be fair to all concerned. But most certainly it should proceed.

Mr. Cassidy: That is correct, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. S. Smith: I thank the leader of the New Democratic Party in that regard. I believe that it is essential that both levels of government, federal and provincial, come to the aid of Windsor at this time, given the economic calamity that has hit the area. It is obvious that supplementary and special benefits, which I am happy to note the federal government did apply in recent weeks, have to be extended with regard to a good many other workers. Certainly this provincial level of government would have to take its share of responsibility in this regard. We simply cannot stay idle and turn a blind eye to what has been happening in Windsor which, as I say, is a scene of economic devastation.

3:20 p.m.

I am very interested in the matter of Ford Motor Company, because I think we have a very interesting situation here. The Premier (Mr. Davis) is saying we are fortunate to have the new plant being built in Windsor and that things would be even worse if there hadn’t been the money given to Ford. Certainly it was my understanding when we gave that money to Ford that there was some agreement these would be additional new jobs.

The Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) in March 1979, said very plainly: “Investment by Ford will have significant impact. The new plant will represent a net direct addition to total employment in the area of 2,600 jobs.” Today he says he was wrong when he said that; that there was no such agreement, and that he gave away the money without knowing the jobs would be a net addition. What we see has happened is the money has been given and the jobs have disappeared.

It may be argued that the Premier cannot control the sale of cars in the United States of America. That is true: He can hardly control anything here in Ontario, let alone in the United States of America. But I would point out that, in 1978, Ford sales of cars and trucks in the United States were about four million, and in 1979 that fell drastically to 3.3 million, a very large decrease indeed. In Canada, however, the market held up. In 1978, there were 335,000 cars and trucks sold by Ford in Canada, and that actually increased in 1979 to 338,000. While the American market was collapsing, the Canadian market actually held up.

What do we see now? We see the layoffs at Ford amounting to 21 per cent of their Canadian work force and about 21 per cent of their United States work force. Why is it that we are suffering equally when our market has held up and their market has not held up? Why is it that we in this country should not be given some form of preferential treatment in this regard? After all, our market has not been responsible for this decline the way the American market has been.

If we have corporate citizens in this country, they should recognize that the market in this country is still related in many ways to the degree of their investment here as a rough proportion, or it is supposed to be a rough proportion. It is bad enough that they don’t buy their parts here in proportion to their market, but they are laying off people in excess of what would be required, taking into consideration the way the Canadian market has held up.

Even if the money had not been given and they had not been building the engine plant, what one would normally find in any circumstances is some balance between the degree of layoff on one side of the border and that on the other side of the border. They have to do that to keep the unions happy on both sides, to keep the senators happy and to keep the politicians happy on both sides.

We understand that sort of thing. But what we are asking is: What did we get extra for our $68 million? If all we got was the same degree of layoff we would have had anyway -- even more than what we should have, considering the market -- if all we got on this side of the border was roughly the same consideration they would have had to give politically anyway -- in fact, not even as much consideration as we should have had -- what did we get for the $68 million? That question has to be answered, and the government has a lot of answering to do.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, no one in this House, certainly no one on this side of the House, ought to try to understate or underestimate the seriousness of the situation in Windsor at this time.

Mr. Laughren: Oh, you are doing pretty well.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That isn’t so. In fact, I have spoken on the matter for a number of months, and other members of this House have pointed out the oncoming situation for a great number of months. Indeed, the Chrysler situation, as we have seen it develop over the past many months, has brought the situation to the fore in terms of almost every citizen of North America, making them aware of the terrible market conditions that are affecting sales of North American automobiles. There is no question that this is the major contributor at the present time to the unemployment situation in Windsor.

We have watched it develop, as has the government of the United States and as have the automobile companies. No one is happy about the situation, and the only solution is for the North American automobile manufacturers to be in a position to manufacture the kind of vehicles that will sell in the North American market.

In the meantime, we have to deal with the current situation, in which we have been attempting to get the federal government to agree to supply the necessary assistance to workers who are temporarily laid off in the Windsor area, to ensure that they’re there, that they are healthy and that they are decently looked after during the cyclical downturn in the market.

We have met with the federal Minister of Employment and Immigration. Mr. Axworthy has undertaken to put in place immediately a program which will cover, he says, all but 2,000 of the workers. He has agreed to deal with each of the 2,000 other cases individually to try to find a way to accommodate each and every one of them. Mr. Axworthy has indicated that, if the figure continues to rise, as it has week after week, he will continue to do everything possible to accommodate each and every worker who is laid off.

We have met with the federal Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, Mr. Gray, to discuss long-term steps to renegotiate portions of the auto pact in order to ensure that this kind of thing does not happen in the future.

Neither of those matters is new; neither of them has developed in the last few days. All of them have been discussed in this House over the past many weeks, indeed, the past many months. We have many initiatives under way. We think a discussion in this assembly on the steps that ought to be taken, given the auto deficit in this country and the layoffs in Windsor, ought to be undertaken at some time.

We must leave it in your hands, Mr. Speaker, to decide whether there is a sudden, urgent, pressing need which brings this matter to the point where a discussion this evening will be pivotal or crucial to the future of the auto industry in this province. We have seen the problem developing. Governments at all levels, to be fair, have been grappling with this problem. General Motors and Ford don’t like to lose money and they have been grappling with the problem.

We have been meeting with the auto companies. I take quite severe objection to the remarks of the leader of the third party (Mr. Cassidy). He suggests we are meeting with the companies only to get the time and date of the closings. I cannot assure the leader of the third party that the closings that we all fear will not occur, any more than the President of the United States can assure people in various states throughout the United States that the 45,000 figure -- the current figure for layoffs there -- will not increase over the next period of months. That is practically impossible for a government to do.

What we can do, and are doing, is deal with the long-term situation. We can also deal with the short-term critical situation regarding the unemployed workers and make sure the social services and the support payments are in place; we have done that.

With regard to the pending layoffs, we have been doing a heck of a lot more than meeting with the presidents of those companies to get the time and date. We have been urging upon them the important levels of employment in Windsor. We cannot do more than is currently being done.

I regret -- and this is always the case -- that the discussions and the kinds of pressure we attempt to put on those companies are not held in the light of day. It becomes most difficult for us to do more than assure this House that we are exercising every conceivable effort to see that those layoffs do not occur.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, as you must decide whether this evening is the critical moment to discuss what is a long-developing and not unique situation in Ontario. In the longer term, and indeed in the medium term --

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member’s time has expired.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- the negotiations with the United States under the auto pact are the core of the problem. The auto pact negotiated 17 years ago is being met by the Ford Motor Company and by General Motors. The problem is that the requirements under the auto pact are not sufficient to ensure that this kind of situation will not occur.

That is surely a longer-term situation. I wonder what can be decided today, but there are many more matters which I would like to deal with. If you decide this is a matter of urgent public importance, we will be happy to debate it this evening.

Mr. Speaker: The notice of motion was in keeping with the standing orders. I believe the contents of the motion fit standing order 34, that it is of urgent public importance. However, I am as concerned as other members are that, given its timing, it does pre-empt a very important part of our work here; that is, the private members’ public business. I do rule that it is of urgent public importance. The next question to be decided by the House is, shall the debate proceed?

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, as you have just stated, because it is a private members’ afternoon and there are two important motions and many people have come from a long distance to view the debate on those motions, with the concurrence of the House, I would like to move that standing order 34(b) be changed to allow this emergency debate to continue tonight at eight o’clock.

Mr. Speaker: The sense of the motion is that the debate should proceed, but at eight o’clock this evening. Do we have agreement on that?

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr. Speaker: I want to remind our guests in the gallery they are perfectly welcome here. The numbers in which they have come have indicated the importance of the matter to be discussed, but I want to remind them that outbursts from our guests in the gallery are not permitted. You are welcome, but please remain quiet, if you will.

Mr. McKessock moved resolution 3:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should take immediate steps to see that the farmers of Ontario are given the same competitive opportunities provided by other provinces and countries to their farmers to allow Ontario farmers to compete fairly with other provinces in Canada and other countries of the world in agricultural production; and in this regard the government must take action to reduce rural hydro rates, reduce farmer and small business interest rates, increase money for tile drainage, increase the capital support program to $20,000, stop the encroachment of cities and towns on to prime agricultural land, stop nonresident foreign ownership of farm land and many other areas in which the farmer could be helped to allow him to survive in Ontario.

Mr. McKessock: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reserve three or four minutes to wind up at the end of the debate.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member has up to 20 minutes. I understand he wants to reserve three or four minutes for a windup.

Mr. McKessock: I am pleased to have the opportunity to lead off this very important debate on agriculture in Ontario, to spell out what other provinces in Canada are doing for their farmers and to request that the Ontario government do the same for our farmers immediately to allow our farmers to be competitive with other provinces, thereby holding our share of agriculture in Ontario.

To put it more bluntly, in facing the immediate need, we need assistance to keep our farmers from going bankrupt. The main emphasis is assistance on interest rates, which are now 18 to 19 per cent for farmers today. The situation is urgent.

I intended to get this speech ready last Saturday, but I didn’t get at it. I have never had so many phone calls or so many farmers call at the farm since I got this job as I did last Saturday. They are very anxious and concerned about the viability of their business with the high interest rates at this time. Farmers will be dropping out like flies if we don’t take action as other provinces have. The number of people we see here today in the gallery and those who can’t get in are an indication of the trouble they are in and the trouble we’ll be in for food in the future if we don’t support them now.

I have here a recent issue of a western Ontario paper sent to me by a farmer, and in it there are more than 190 farm sales listed. This is only a little newspaper in Ontario, but it also points out that farm land is dropping by up to 33 per cent. Why? These interest rates are going to be the straw that broke the camel’s back.

When I wrote this resolution last December, I took a good look at it to see why some people, including myself as a farmer, might be opposed to it. I came up with three reasons, but I have dispelled all of them. I’ll go over those three reasons. First, the principle of giving assistance to a free-enterprise business is wrong. I agree with that principle, but when other businesses, such as Ford and Chrysler, are getting help, yet the food industry in this country employs 40 per cent of our people, are we going to sit back like nice guys and go broke gracefully or let other provinces and countries, which are giving their farmers assistance, produce the food for us?

Our farmers are hit with high input costs, unfair competition from other provinces and an unfair share of the province’s budget. I decided, therefore, that objection number one was not justified at this time.

The second reason that farmers, including myself, might be opposed to the resolution is that they are in an okay position. What do I mean by that? I mean they might have started farming 20 years ago and they have built up enough equity and have enough low interest rate mortgages to survive.

I myself have a 6.625 per cent Farm Credit Corporation mortgage that doesn’t run out for another 15 years. Is it fair for me to say things are okay today? No. I am in a position to know, and I know that without the kind of assistance farmers got in the past I couldn’t have survived. This assistance over the last 10 years has disappeared in Ontario, but it is needed now just as badly as ever before. The other provinces in Canada seem to be aware of this.

I started farming with a four per cent Ontario government junior farmer mortgage loan. I expect there are some farmers who are still benefiting from that four per cent interest rate. If they are, or if they have in the past, I hope I don’t hear them say that no assistance is needed today.

If we want agriculture even to hold its own, we must give it the assistance it needs now, because over the past 10 years it has not been holding its own in Ontario.

The third person who could be opposed to the resolution is the consumer, the taxpayer, because it is going to take tax dollars. I want to point out that food in Canada has been the cheapest of anywhere in the world, except the United States, over the past years. It will not stay this way if we allow our agricultural industry to shrink. Therefore, it is in the consumers’ interest to keep as many of our farmers as possible and to keep them strong so the consumer will have a good flow of agricultural produce right here at home.

We are already importing too much food. The price of a first shipment of imports may look good but, after our farmers are put out of business, then watch the prices climb.

Interruption.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Any further outburst and we’ll have to ask you to leave.

Mr. McKessock: I hope I have now helped anyone who might have been opposed to the resolution to understand why this resolution is a must at this time.

Farm production costs today are outstripping what appear to be high prices for meat, milk, eggs and other products. The cost of a tractor today is double what it was in 1972. The interest rate is 18.5 per cent, or one over prime; that is what most farmers are paying. If a person is a farmer’s son, he will be paying 19 per cent, or 1.5 per cent over prime.

One may ask, “Are these costs not the same for other provinces?” No. The point is they are not, and haven’t been for some time. This is why Ontario has fallen behind in agricultural production in the last 10 years. Ontario’s share of production in Canada has been declining steadily over the last 10 years, and I have the facts here from Statistics Canada to prove it.

In 1968, Ontario’s share of Canada’s total farm cash receipts for cattle and calves amounted to 34.6 per cent; in 1979, this figure had declined to 29.7 per cent. In 1968, 37.3 per cent of Canada’s total cash farm receipts for hogs belonged to Ontario; by 1979 this had declined to 34.8 per cent. Dairy products declined from 38.6 per cent to 35.4 per cent. Poultry declined from 39.4 per cent to 36.8 per cent. For other livestock products, excluding sheep, the decline was from 35.1 per cent to 30.1 per cent. The only commodity in these staple products to increase was sheep and lambs, which increased from 33.1 per cent to 39.4 per cent.

If we compare Quebec’s share of Canada’s total cash farm receipts for the same commodities, for the same period, we find that their share has been increasing rapidly. Why? Let’s take a look at it.

The Ontario government over the last 10 years has had a record in agriculture of moving too late. Back in 1972-73, Ontario lost some of its Canadian share of milk quota to Quebec because Ontario did not fill its quota. This allowed Quebec, under the law, to absorb the quota Ontario didn’t fill if it needed it. Quebec needed it because the Quebec government was assisting its farmers in agricultural costs. They could produce more competitively than could Ontario farmers. For these reasons, Ontario production lagged and quotas were not filled. Quebec absorbed the quota.

3:40 p.m.

The Ontario government, seeing what had happened, brought in incentive programs, causing a flow of milk which we didn’t need with our reduced quota. They took steps to lock the door after the horse had been stolen. When I look at the drop in Ontario’s share of Canadian production, I feel we have lost a few more horses in the past year, and we are about to lose more if immediate action is not taken.

This resolution requests that Ontario farmers be given the same competitive opportunities as farmers in other provinces and in countries. That’s all we ask; nothing more, nothing less.

What are other countries doing? One and a half years ago the member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. G. I. Miller) and I visited farms in Switzerland. At that time, beef farmers were receiving the equivalent of $1.50 a pound on the hoof for market steers; 25 cents of that was paid by the government. It is reported that the countries in the European Economic Community can now borrow money at a three per cent interest rate.

In the United States, farmers get government loans ranging from 11 to 13 per cent. There’s a law in the United States which compels commercial banks to charge farmers, small businesses and individuals no more than three per cent -- under compulsion of a fine.

I had a local farmer call Texas on Tuesday morning to get the up-to-date interest rates. This farmer, whom I know, borrows money in Texas and feeds cattle down there in a feed-lot. The present rate of interest for Ontario farmers in Texas is 17 per cent. If you are a resident of Texas, it’s less. In Ontario, it’s 18.5 to 19 per cent.

Now, back to Canada and to Ontario compared with other provinces in Canada. I have asked for assistance on interest rates and for increased capital support. Let’s take a look at what the other provinces are doing.

In New Brunswick, a new entrant who hasn’t previously borrowed from the Farm Adjustment Board can borrow money without paying any interest for two years. For the next five years the farmer pays the provincial lending rate minus three per cent, which would be 9.75 per cent. From the eighth year, it’s the provincial government lending rate, which at this time would be 12.75 per cent.

In 1979, British Columbia reimbursed farmers to a nine per cent interest rate. This year it will be reimbursing them to a maximum of $10,000 per farmer.

Manitoba’s Agricultural Credit Corporation assists in long- and intermediate-term loans at half of one per cent above the cost to finance in the province. At present, it’s 12.5 per cent. Young farmers -- get this -- have a rebate of principal of four per cent a year up to $10,000 for the first five years.

Saskatchewan has loans of up to $90,000 for 15 years at 6.75 per cent for the first five years and 8.75 per cent for the balance of the loan.

Nova Scotia has farm loans of up to $200,000 per farmer, ranging from six per cent interest for young farmers to 8.5 per cent for a commercial operation. For new farmers the entire interest is paid by the government for two years.

Alberta has loans up to $150,000, with a two per cent interest rebate. They also have loans of $200,000 at six per cent for land purchasing.

I know several farmers who have sold out, moved and purchased farms in the west -- and no wonder.

Now for Quebec: I don’t have time to give all the farm programs that Quebec has, because there are four pages of them. I’ll list a few.

There are long-term loans, up to 39 years, for $250,000, with an interest rate on the first $15,000 of 2.5 per cent and in interest rate of eight per cent on the next $150,000. There is capital assistance of $100 a steer up to 400 steers, if one wants to build a feed-lot. Get that. That’s $40,000 per farmer -- and that’s just for beef. I’m asking for capital support of only $20,000 per farmer in Ontario.

What has Ontario got? There is only one thing the Ontario government has in the way of assistance that is really worth mentioning. I refer to the tile drainage program. It was so desperately short of funds that it wasn’t working adequately; some farmers could get money and others couldn’t.

Then the minister did put some more money in the pot, but not enough. Ten days ago, on March 31, at a time when we are trying to get assistance with interest rates, the minister raised the tile drainage loan money from six per cent to eight per cent. I can’t figure him out. Maybe he has too many friends.

Ontario has a 13-year-old, $3,000 capital support program. If a farmer used his $3,000 13 years ago, he is out of luck. Ontario has no interest assistance on general farm loans.

The Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Henderson) should consider becoming Jimmy Carter’s Minister of Agriculture, because he is really good in dealing with peanuts -- and peanuts are all we are getting here in Ontario, compared with other provinces.

I have now covered what I feel is the most immediate concern of the resolution: help with interest rates, increased capital support, and more money for tile drainage.

I want to touch briefly on the other parts of the resolution. Farmers should get better hydro rates; rural rates, as the Premier admitted today, now are 29 per cent above urban rates. Quebec farmers are paying less.

Foreign buying of farms shouldn’t be allowed unless the buyer wants to live here in Ontario. If Ontario farmers are not given the assistance they need now, they are going to be very vulnerable to foreign buyers. I know a farmer who has been offered a large sum of money for his dairy farm, and he would be allowed to manage it indefinitely. It is Arab and German money that is being provided to make these farm purchases.

The food land guidelines are not preserving farm land. Cities are eating up the land that feeds them. Toronto is using more prime farm land than any other city in Canada. With our growing population and depleting land reserves, it is just a matter of time until we in Ontario won’t be able to feed ourselves. If we don’t take steps now to assist farmers with these interest rates, then we will have lots of land, because there will be nobody to farm it. Either way we have problems. Both ways we must take action.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, as a person who has some roots in the farm community and is attached to a party which has real concern about what is happening to agriculture, I am very happy to take part in this debate.

The first impression one gets from the resolution we are debating is this kind of scatter-gun approach taken towards farm problems in the resolution itself. But if it is intended, as I believe it is, to stress the serious situation generally in the farm industry, it serves a very useful purpose.

Sitting in this House, one cannot help but conclude that the government doesn’t really recognize the magnitude of the problem facing the farmers of this province. The very fact that today there is only one cabinet minister out of 27 in this House, when the most important issue that has faced farmers in many years is before us, it is a good indication of their concern.

The issues boil down to three fundamental ones: the viability of farm operations, the self-sufficiency of food and the continued provision of that food at reasonable prices. If the government over there and all of us in this province -- consumers as well -- don’t think that all three of those are seriously threatened, I say we are living in a dream world.

Statistics and projections by agronomists and farm organizations indicate that Ontario, and even Canada, is self-sufficient in a seriously diminishing number of farm commodities. The Ontario Federation of Agriculture and other groups tell us this province is self-sufficient in only egg and vegetable production; perhaps there is another commodity or two at times. Ontario imports from out of the country $100 million to $200 million worth of fruits and vegetables and their end products, which could be produced within this nation and much of it within this province.

This is not the fault of the farmers; they can produce what we need. Rather, it is a fault of government policies, both provincial and federal. It is high time there was a long-term agricultural strategy for this province as recommended by the OFA in its brief to the government just a few days ago.

3:50 p.m.

The current trends in agriculture, particularly the lack of self-sufficiency in food, have to be frightening to both the consumers and the producers. Statistics Canada projects that realized net farm income this year will drop 12 per cent in Canada and a massive 40 per cent in Ontario. I would point out that this projection was done before the latest interest rate increase; so the actual situation will probably be worse. This follows a net income rise for farmers of only 14 per cent from 1977 to 1979, which was less than the inflation rate, while operating expenses rose 48 per cent. In general, even this limited net income of farmers is computed without considering their capital investment in the farms.

There is no question that if return on investment was taken into consideration even at 10 per cent, let alone the 18 per cent, there would be hardly a farm in Ontario with any net income at all.

What we are doing in this society is living off the capital invested or created by farmers, in the form of lands or buildings, one or two generations or decades ago. Why should farmers not have the same investment return on capital as all other segments of our society?

Two days ago, the Globe and Mail carried a report on its financial pages concerning Weston’s, that small company operating in this nation. After saying food distribution, which is Loblaws, was the cornerstone of the company, that report made this comment: “The food distribution division did not match its estimates of a suitable return on equity.” Yet the return reported was 15 per cent. What has so much more value about food distribution compared with food production that a corporate giant is dissatisfied with its 15 per cent but farmers have to settle for little or no return on their equity?

Let me say that it is going to catch up with us as farm ownership changes and this generation moves on to the next. New accounting procedures will come to parallel those of other businesses. When that happens, and it will, Ontario consumers are going to pay a tremendous price for the failure of this government to keep farm land values at a reasonable level. The price of most farm land is far above a viable price for farm purposes. The two factors that have caused it are the urban speculative shadow and foreign ownership, matters over which this government has now and had full jurisdiction, but simply refused to act.

There is no farm land in this province, regardless of its agricultural value, firmly and definitely designated for agriculture, because there is no provincial land-use plan. Look at the Niagara fruit land. When the Tories came to power in this province, only 45 per cent of the urban development of Niagara was taking place on that fruit land, which is only one quarter of the area of Niagara.

During the whole 37 years of Tory government, not a single major urban development has been prevented or even deterred because it was to be located on the fruit land. During the present $2-million Ontario Municipal Board hearings to try to preserve the 50 to 60 per cent of the remaining unique fruit lands, this government has refused even to appear at those bearings and defend its highly publicized statement that there are 3,000 acres too many within the urban development boundary. What a façade! What hypocrisy!

The same approach is taken to foreign ownership: Minimize the dangers, mouth pious words and do nothing. A short way down the road Ontarians and Canadians are going to pay a tremendous price for this squandering of our agricultural resources. This government must move during this term of office to preserve everything that is left of our best land or it must be replaced by a government that will.

All the viability problems facing farmers are compounded and overshadowed this spring by the unprecedented rise in input costs as outlined by the member for Grey (Mr. McKessock). At the top, of course, are interest rates; but there are such things as fertilizers, sprays, fuels and so on. Once again, this government and the government in Ottawa, the Liberals and Tories, refuse to do anything more than wring their hands.

Almost every other province recognizes the worth of its agricultural community by providing capital and other loans at substantially reduced interest rates -- but not Ontario, which has the most important agricultural production of any province. I am not going to go into the details of what is given by other provinces, because the member for Grey has done that. However, I must point out --

An hon. member: We finally got another cabinet minister.

Mr. Swart: That makes two out of 27.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order, please. The time is limited.

Mr. Swart: I might point out at this time that none of those provinces he mentioned has a Liberal government. They might not have the programs either. I challenge this government to bring in a loan program such as they have in Saskatchewan and most other provinces. The minister will get quick support from all sides of this House if he does.

The ultimate solution on interest rates rests with the federal government. The re-emergence of the Liberals there has simply heightened the problem. We are not incapable of dealing with the interest rate crisis; rather, we have had governments at Ottawa that are committed to letting the so-called marketplace determine everything, including interest rates. That is no longer good enough. We in this party aren’t shackled by such outdated philosophies.

Direction must go to the Bank of Canada to lower its interest rate step by step until it gets to a reasonable level. Neither in agriculture nor in any place else can we afford the existing rate. As well as hurting people, it will grind our economy to a halt. Sure, the value of our dollar will fall and imports will cost more, but that may well be a blessing. Certainly, we will have to become more self-sufficient. It will enhance consumption and production of our own farm products. A low dollar value will discourage export of capital. While there are certain disadvantages, the advantage of substantially reducing the interest rate far overweighs keeping it at the present level.

Other government policies have also delivered staggering whammies to farmers this year, such as the oust of fertilizer because this government over here and the federal government hasn’t done anything to separate the price of gas from the price of oil. Nitrates are up 30 per cent this year, sprays are up, gasoline is up and there is no effort by this government over here or the federal government to keep those input costs down for the farmer.

I commend the member for Grey for giving this high priority to agriculture. I wish his party, provincially and federally, felt the same. He knows it is the Liberals who have permitted the sharpest interest rate hikes at Ottawa and approved natural gas prices that have driven nitrate fertilizers up by 30 per cent this year. He knows it is his own Liberals here who two weeks ago seemed to put every major concern of his party into a no-confidence motion to bring the government down, but made only passing reference to one single farm problem in that seven-point motion.

Mr. Acting Speaker: The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr. Swart: Even on that, with regard to interest rates they put farmer loans after residential mortgages and they put them after small business loans. We in this party will give support to this resolution, and we will endeavour to bring about something real over there with regard to helping the farmers.

Mr. Watson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to the resolution presented by the member for Grey which asks for the same competitive opportunities for Ontario farmers as are provided in other provinces and other countries.

This resolution is rather all-inclusive. One could take it apart phrase by phrase, agreeing with some sections and disagreeing with others. For example, last year most of the 74,000 farmers in this province had the opportunity to participate in $126 million in direct payments as assistance to farmers by way of tax rebates, drainage installation and crop insurance grants. Farmers and the government of Ontario as partners in the past 10 years have spent $245 million maintaining and improving our drainage systems on more than a million acres. Of this, about $111 million was borrowed from the province under the tile drainage program.

Last year this government provided payments to Ontario farmers and municipalities, totalling $41 million, for improvements to drainage systems. The member for Grey made comparisons with other provinces. I would point out that this amount exceeds by 50 per cent the amount provided by the province of Quebec for tile drainage.

The provision of $54 million for the farm tax rebate last year was provided to take a significant tax load off the farmers. These rebates provide for 50 per cent of municipal taxes on land and farm buildings assessment. Again, if we wish to make comparisons with other provinces, this compared with only 35 per cent to 40 per cent rebate offered to Quebec farmers by the Quebec government.

4 p.m.

Ontario farmers, since the capital grant program was instituted in 1967, have shared in a program which has provided $182 million in grants to farmers for buildings and improvements.

The new farm productivity incentive program, which was introduced in 1979, increased the grant allowance from $3,000 to $6,000 per farm for the combination of facilities such as manure storage and soil-erosion control devices. In the past fiscal year, this involved a $13-million expenditure by the Ontario government to the farmers.

These are some of the examples of the steps that are already being taken to assist farmers in this province. But the main and immediate concern of the farm community is the present interest rates on operating capital. The problem of high interest rates is certainly not unique to farmers in Ontario. It is a concern to farmers throughout Canada, North America and indeed the world. It is a concern to the small businessmen, the farm cooperatives, the farm suppliers and home owners and anybody else who has to borrow money.

The monetary and fiscal policies of this country are not determined in this Legislature, but are determined in the Parliament of Canada. In this regard, I have been informed that the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Henderson) will be meeting with the Hon. Eugene Whelan here next week to discuss this very issue. I hope that our Minister of Agriculture and Food will be pressing for information on what the federal government’s plans are to assist Canadian farmers in coping with the high interest rates.

It has been the policy in Ontario to encourage farmers to use existing sources for long-term loans and especially loans from the Farm Credit Corporation. It is interesting to note it was announced just last week that the FCC loan interest rates were to go up to 13 per cent for the land and 13.25 per cent on loans under the Farm Syndicate Credit Act.

It is my opinion that the farmers really don’t want subsidies as such, but they are businessmen and they would want to obtain their living from the marketplace. It is only when there are factors in the marketplace that are beyond their individual and collective control that they find themselves in extreme difficulty.

The government of Ontario has arranged, and will continue to arrange, for low-interest loans to meet disasters for special adjustments of production. Last fall, for instance, the province provided up to $100,000 at six per cent for farmers who suffered damage from the tornado that crossed Oxford, Brant and Norfolk. It is expected that subsidies on this disaster relief loan will approach $1 million this year. Greenhouse growers in southwestern Ontario were assisted interest-free in the first year and six per cent below prime in the second year, to recover from the damage of the storm of almost tornado proportions of early 1978.

The member for Grey calls for a stop to encroachment of cities and towns on to prime farm land. I remind him that there is enabling legislation and Foodland guidelines for municipalities to designate land for agricultural use.

The foreign ownership bill announced in the speech from the throne addresses the concern of farmers regarding foreign ownership. It is interesting to note that the resolution presented by the member for Grey calls for the stopping of nonresident foreign ownership of farm land, and a private bill introduced by his colleague the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) calls only for the registration of farm land by owners. I must conclude that not everyone in that party is unanimous in how to deal with all the situations in rural Ontario.

I cannot let this opportunity go by without emphasizing the tradition of this government, through the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, of providing the best possible field staff to serve farmers. The advisory staff provides a wide range of expertise and is particularly known for its farm management, crops and livestock programs, which are not surpassed anywhere in Canada. The mission of the staff is to help the farmers help themselves. This service in the field of assistance and advice is there for the asking.

The advisory staff is backed up by research scientists working at Guelph, the agricultural colleges and research stations. There is more than $21 million budgeted for agricultural research in Ontario this year. I think the people should know that this government’s budget for that is more than that of any other province in Canada; in fact, Ontario for years has been spending three times more than any other province in Canada on agricultural research. The eastern agreement with the federal government has been announced, and projects have been approved this month for the development of agriculture in eastern Ontario. The introduction of the general agreement for agriculture in northern Ontario is anticipated. These agreements for cost-sharing programs are with the federal Department of Regional Economic Expansion. Negotiations have been long, difficult and resulted in an interruption of the past ARDA programs.

Ontario’s percentage of the federal commitments under the general development agreements in the last four years is less than five per cent of the Canadian total. As an example, in comparison, Quebec received 27 per cent of these federal funds. Expressed as dollars contributed by the federal government to agriculture in each province, this represented $900 per census farm in Quebec, compared with $100 for every Ontario farm.

It’s pretty easy to give out provincial funds when it’s flowed through the federal government and comes from our farmers to begin with. I don’t think this is equitable treatment for Ontario farmers. It certainly isn’t equitable for those in southwestern Ontario who are left completely out of these agreements. It may be equitable for some in eastern Ontario and some in northern Ontario and I suppose for the member for Grey; he is kind of in the grey area, and they really don’t know whether they are in or out most of the time with regard to those agreements.

I intend to support this resolution. I recognize that it has some flaws, but I will be supporting it because the philosophy expressed in the resolution is of concern to me and the people I represent. We do have an immediate and pressing concern for the cash flow of Ontario farmers, and the interest rate at the present time is at the head of that list.

At the same time, I want to point out that many Ontario farmers do not want to be limited to the same competitive opportunities that are provided in other countries, as is listed in the resolution, because unrestricted opportunities to farm in this province are what has brought them to this area, and they don’t want to return to a system that enshrines them in some inefficiencies in farming operations in a place where the government wants to keep everybody equal. It’s because we have opportunities they don’t have in other countries that our agriculture has been able to flourish.

The underlying concern of this resolution is of importance not only to farmers of this province, but also to everyone else. Farmers produce the food we eat -- and that affects everybody, regardless of their vocation or the location. Inflation and high interest rates affect us all. Food production affects us all. The farmers of this province are the producers of food. As government, as farmers, and as consumers we must work together to ensure that the basic producer of this province not only survives, but also is provided with an opportunity to carry on a healthy business in a healthy province.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to commend my colleague the member for Grey for introducing a resolution that is so meaningful to the farmers of Ontario today. The very fact that an opposition member had to introduce this resolution indicates to me this government’s lack of commitment to the agricultural industry.

They can talk all they like about the drainage loan, about the minimum capital grant, and about the amount of money that is spent on research, but that is not going to help the farmer who is coping with high interest rates on his mortgages and on his operating loan today.

A further indication of the lack of commitment on the part of this government is the fact that the Minister of Agriculture and Food didn’t respond. He wasn’t the first speaker on that side of the House to get up and give us some answers, particularly when we have a House full of farmers. I will be very disappointed if I don’t hear some kind of response from the Minister of Agriculture and Food today.

We in this party and the farmers of this province are concerned that, because of the lack of commitment given by this government to the agricultural industry, in the years ahead we will not be able to fulfil our responsibility to provide efficiently and economically the food needed to feed the growing population of Ontario, Canada and the world for that matter.

4:10 p.m.

Farmers today are facing increasing pressures from many sides: economic pressures, land pressures and social pressures. When our farmers view this government’s support for agriculture in relation to the assistance provided to farmers by other provincial governments and by other countries, they despair at the prospect of becoming noncompetitive. Ontario’s 1979-80 agricultural expenditure, as a percentage of total budgetary expenditures, is 1.17 per cent, the second lowest in Canada, and only higher than New Brunswick’s.

That’s a sad commentary. Anybody who says the agricultural industry or the farming industry is highly subsidized in Ontario had better take a look at the commitment the government makes to the farming industry in this province.

Agriculture truly has become this government’s forgotten industrial sector. This province was nearly self-sufficient in food in 1961, but it is rapidly losing the capacity to feed its own citizens. Ontario’s agriculture is worth about $4 billion annually. About one third of Canada’s agricultural output comes from Ontario. In other words, Ontario is still the agricultural heartland, but we would never know it according to this government.

The value added in this province by Ontario farmers is greater than that of any other primary industry, including mining, and ahead of that of any single manufacturing industry. Twenty per cent of our population works at jobs connected with the food and agricultural industries. Agriculture ranks as the top primary goods-producing industry. When we consider that only about four per cent of our people are farmers, we see how tremendous a contribution they make. Are we prepared to see them going down the drain? I hope not.

There has been a steady decline in the position of Ontario farming in comparison with agriculture in Canada. Moreover, there is a growing dependence in this province on imported food. In 1978, Ontario imported approximately $256 million worth of fresh fruit and vegetables and $245 million worth of livestock. The potential for growth by replacing imports pales when compared to the potential for growth in exports. We are not utilizing our full capabilities in this province. Ontario farmers need meaningful programs from the government to restore and build their confidence and to stop the decline foreseen for agriculture in the 1980s.

Our farmers ask for no more than assistance to compete with the programs offered farmers in other provinces or countries. Our farmers cannot compete with the treasuries of other countries. For example, ever since the European Economic Community was founded, it has followed a policy of subsidizing its own agriculture at the expense of both its consumers and overseas farmers. European farmers are not as cost-efficient as we are; so they have used higher internal support prices to achieve their goal of higher domestic production. A very large part of the EEC countries’ budgets goes to subsidize something that would never be tolerated here.

This naturally has destroyed our market as have several of the spinoffs from their high support prices. In the mid-1960s, nearly half our exports went to the EEC countries, but in 1978 these countries represented only 38 per cent of Canada’s trade. Farm incomes for Ontario for 1980 are forecast to decline by 40 per cent because price levels are too low to offset rising interest rates and input costs.

Last year the largest increase in operating expenses for farmers occurred in interest charges, which were up 36 per cent. Interest rates at today’s unprecedented heights will spell the end for many of the province’s farmers. If this happens, it leaves Ontario farmers in the vulnerable position of selling their farms to the large number of foreign investors who are most anxious to invest their capital in Ontario’s farm land. Surely this is not the kind of legacy this government would like to leave future generations of Canadians.

Credit is a vital component of the modem farm business. Credit flow to farmers is increasing at a rate of 18 per cent per year. Farmer indebtedness in Ontario now is about $3.4 billion. It has been calculated that every time interest rates rise one per cent, Ontario farmers pay out something like an additional $32 million a year to banks and finance companies.

Ontario is the only province, other than Prince Edward Island, that does not have some sort of subsidized credit program for farmers. Quebec offers privileged interest rates and loans up to $250,000. I’m not going to elaborate on that, because my colleague has already done so. He also went through the type of low-interest-rate loans other provinces are offering -- from 2.5 per cent in Quebec to 6.75 per cent, nine per cent and prime minus three per cent in other provinces. In the United States, about half the farm loans are provided through production credit association loans, at 12.5 per cent to 13 per cent interest rates, and through the federal government’s farmers’ home administration bans, at 11 per cent.

That government recently passed a bill extending the farmer home administration economic emergency loans to September 1981 and increasing the fund from $4 billion to $6 billion. They are looking after their agricultural industry in the United States.

There is a need for the government to preserve the farmer in tough times, just as it is prepared to do with other industries. There are a number of precedents for the government coming to the aid of troubled industries. Let me give a few: a $28-million provincial grant to Ford Motor Company of Canada to build a new plant; a $10.5-million grant to Domtar Incorporated to modernize its pulp and paper facility; a $16.6-million loan to E. B. Eddy Forest Products Limited to improve plant facilities; $7 million to Spruce Falls Power and Paper Company to improve plant facilities; $15 million in assistance to modernize the textile industry; $15 million to Abitibi-Price Incorporated to modernize its facilities; $15 million automobile sales tax rebate for 1979 model cars -- nothing more than a grant from Ontario taxpayers to some car dealers.

Yet the provincial government says it is unable to find even $25 million for a program, asked for by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, to provide short-term loans at 10 per cent interest to help farmers through the 1980 cropping season.

There is a lack of commitment on the part of this government to the agricultural industry in Ontario. Unless its attitude changes, we will see not only many farmers go into bankruptcy, but also those who rely on the farming industry, including machinery dealers, feed companies, merchants and businessmen in rural Ontario.

Since the Minister of Agriculture and Food comes from rural Ontario, he should realize the seriousness of the situation. Surely he will tell this House some time today what the province is prepared to do to help farmers over this tough time.

I don’t want to hear him say: “It’s a federal jurisdiction.” None of the other provinces looks at it that way. I expect the minister to follow suit with the other provinces.

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak briefly on this resolution, the intent of which I support. I congratulate the member for introducing it in this House.

While doing research for this speech, I looked at the front page of today’s Toronto Star, and I saw: “Interest Spiral Hits Store Credit Rates.” The figures are almost unbelievable.

The first paragraph of the story says: “At least two major retail chains, Simpsons-Sears and Hudson’s Bay Company, are raising the annual interest rate to 23.4 per cent from 21 per cent on purchases made with their charge cards.”

Whatever happened to the word “usury”? It’s in the dictionary. It’s in the Bible. It has been a part of most societies that there are limits on what creditors can charge people. In the United States, many legislatures have enacted legislation that has a specific figure beyond which interest can’t be charged. We don’t do that in Canada. We don’t do that in Ontario. Whatever happened to that concept of usury, which in many societies was considered to be a crime, and not a symbol of success or profit?

The federal policy of tight money indicates how dominated, controlled and manipulated our economy is in this country and province. I recall Herb Gray saying on television during the last federal election campaign that, if he were a minister in the next government and that government were to increase interest rates, he would resign as a minister in that cabinet.

When the people in the galleries today listen to politicians, when they see examples like that, they say, “How can we believe any of them?” People campaign across the country against high interest rates, and what do they do when they get in power? We’ve had two parties in power, federally, in the past six months and they’ve both done the same thing. Is it any wonder the politicians are regarded with such scepticism and cynicism?

4:20 p.m.

What do these governments do for the farmers? Several members have already outlined what other provinces are doing. In this Legislature, all we ever hear is: “It’s the feds. We’ll talk to the feds. We’ll see if we can get something from the feds.” At least I can look back on the history of this party and say we have consistently fought the concept of tight-money policies, whether federal or provincial.

I think we’re the only ones who can say, “We don’t get money from the banks when it comes to election time.” We will bare our campaign contributions, and we challenge the other parties to put their records on the line and show the farmers here how much money they get from the chartered banks, the finance companies, the trust companies and the profiteers.

Surely, the proof of the pudding is if they criticize them but take their money at election time; what are they doing? Who are they kidding? At least we can say we don’t get money from the banks. We don’t answer to the banks. We don’t owe favours to the banks, because we’re opposed to the monopoly power and cartel power of the banks in Canada today.

I can look at the record of this party and see that we were the first party in Canada to introduce legislation to protect farm land from encroachment. We did that when we were in power in British Columbia. We took a lot of flak for that, but we stood firm because we believed in it. Our party has fought consistently against the principle of foreign domination of our economy, whether it be industrial, commercial or agricultural.

Going back to the roots of this party, the CCF raised the issue of foreign ownership and foreign domination, and yet the parties in power have consistently sold out this country, sold out our resources, sold out our land and sold out our people to the highest bidder. Their record is clear, and it’s a record that’s an insult. We have fought for Canadian ownership. We have fought for small business. We have fought to restore the role of Canada as an independent country, and not a satellite or lackey of the United States.

We were the first to propose a mechanism to stop or control foreign takeovers, and actually proposed a strategy to recover Canadian control of our economy. We introduced strong legislation in Saskatchewan against foreign ownership of farm land.

When the New Democratic Party was in power in Manitoba, we introduced similar legislation to limit foreign ownership of farm lands.

Our party in Saskatchewan has introduced legislation to help farm businesses in communities of less than 6,000 to protect the viability of those small communities.

Our party believes that we should do as much for small business -- and I’m including agriculture in that -- as this government does for big business.

Look at the record of this government in the past 12 months. There was $100 million for the pulp and paper industry, those poor suffering profiteers with 94 per cent average profits in 1978. They got a gift -- not a loan -- of $100 million. Henry Ford and friends got $29 million, and look what’s happening in Windsor today. The manufacturing sector will be receiving $65 million. And people who wanted to buy cars that dealers couldn’t sell got $3 million. All were gifts and not loans.

Our party supports the efforts of the dairy farmers of eastern Ontario to get a fair deal when it comes to quota. We support the efforts of the small cheese factories to survive. We believe in the integrity and the viability of the dairy industry and those cheese factories. They are an integral part of our heritage in this province. We believe in the family farm. We believe it’s viable. We believe in the power and long-term future of the family farm.

We believe in controlling the power of the chartered banks. No other party in a provincial or federal legislature has the guts to take on the power of the chartered banks. We’re prepared to end their monopoly, to end the power of the cartels. We’re the only party that talks about monopolies and cartels which fix prices, control supply, and increase costs for the farmers.

We’ve had an example of the two old-line parties in power federally. Look at their record on interest rates, on the banks, on the cartels, on competition and monopolies. That record speaks for itself.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to take part in this debate today, not to criticize what has been said but to speak to a point of very grave concern. This is far too serious to speak the way that party has been today -- trying to make it a political issue.

I listened to the two Liberal members who are farmers themselves. They understand the real situation and spoke from their heart about it. I congratulate them. They understand the situation. People in the audience all around here know what the real problem is.

Each and every one of those people sitting up there is an experienced farmer who has gone out and worked in the soil. They have cared for cattle, they have cared for hogs, they have cared for chickens, turkeys, what have you; they are from every walk of life. Their real concern today is the high interest rates. Where are they going to get money to carry on the operation of their farm this year? I share that concern with them.

I am not speaking here today for political gain. We should all be concerned, on a nonpartisan basis, to try in arrive at a solution. If it were permissible today, Mr. Speaker, and I realize it is not permissible, I would ask the member for Grey to add something to his resolution. Next Wednesday morning, when I meet the federal Minister of Agriculture, I would like the support of this Legislature to request him to go back to his colleagues to request the Bank of Canada to make money available through the local lending institutions at an interest rate similar to or lower than the interest rate that was experienced some 18 months to two years ago.

I really believe the honourable member would incorporate that, but I realize that House procedure doesn’t permit it. I am going to request that of the minister, and I would hope that I would have the support of the House. I know I will have the support of our party. I don’t need to worry; I feel confident about having it.

I think it is important that the people sitting up around us here are aware of the penalty the people of Ontario are paying through the federal distribution of equalization grants. Keep in mind that Ontario was offered $500 million. Our Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) turned it down. He said it was not a fair share to Ontario. We haven’t taken it.

Newfoundland got $344 million; Prince Edward Island, $79 million; Nova Scotia, $419 million; New Brunswick, $356 million; Quebec, $1,574,000,000; Manitoba, $295 million; Saskatchewan, $52 million; and Alberta, nil.

4:30 p.m.

I know I am not speaking to the farmers of Alberta, but is there any reason why they should get less than the farmers of Saskatchewan or Manitoba? Think about that, because the other part of Albertan society is wealthy. The farmers there are being penalized in exactly the same way as the farmers in Ontario are being penalized. British Columbia is also deprived of any help for the same reason.

Earlier today, at the microphone outside, I spelled out some of the programs we have established for our farmers in Ontario. I repeat that in Ontario, of the $200-million budget I administer, $128 million goes in direct grants to the farm communities. The only direct grant to our farmers that hasn’t been mentioned here today is the farm tax rebate.

Mr. Riddell: That’s also part of the minister’s budget.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party is a very honourable party; in fact, all members of this House are honourable members. But some of them try to make political gains out of something that is very serious to me.

I informed the executives of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture when I met with them some 10 days ago, that, following their presence in Ottawa about two weeks down the way, I will be very glad to sit down and talk to them to see what solutions we can work out.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent) for up to three minutes.

Mr. Sargent: Three minutes?

Mr. Makarchuk: He has to be an exception. He’s 65 today.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, I think it is a shocking situation when the Premier (Mr. Davis) and the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) have other things to do when the most important group in our economy is in dire trouble. This whole subject today isn’t political. Every one of the government members knows the minister is totally wrong. It is the responsibility of the government to look after its people. What does one tell a farmer who was paying nine and 10 per cent interest last year on bank money and now has to raise another $20,000 a year extra or go down the tube if he doesn’t pay?

Hon. Mr. Norton: What has the member said to Mr. Trudeau about this?

Mr. Sargent: This is net a federal problem. It is a job for the province to solve itself. Last week in the House, when I asked the Premier what he was going to do about giving us the same deal as Quebec, he said he had no plans to do anything. I asked the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Henderson), and he said he would wait to see what the federal government was going to do.

The group in the galleries came to the meeting today as businessmen. Agriculture is big business, the biggest business in Ontario. They are going to go down the tube if the minister carries on the way he is doing. They want a commitment as to what the minister is going to do.

I suggest to the minister that the chickens are going to come home to roost pretty soon when these people have given their lives. We had 500 farmers the other night. One young chap got up and almost cried. He said: “I am not only going down the drain; I am taking my mother and father with me.” This is happening right across the whole scene, and the minister has the arrogance to talk about asking the federal government what it will do. What a ridiculous situation!

He is going to ask them. Why in the hell doesn’t he run his own ship and give these people the deal they have coming to them?

These people have come here to bring a message to the Premier, and to all Ontario:

This system is not working. The system is unparalleled in our liberties and equality and prosperity, but today it is aimed against us. These people are going to be put out of business because they can’t pay 20 per cent for money, and this government knows that. What can they do?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence, I’d like to quote one set of figures which are very important to us at this point.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member has 30 seconds.

Mr. Sargent: Some people will say that two per cent is not important. It isn’t very important from 10 to 12 per cent but, when we get from 18 to 20 per cent, $100,000 becomes $8 million between 18 and 20 per cent. It’s a mathematical certainty that the whole economy will go down the drain on this setup.

Interjections.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Order. The honourable members have just wasted some time. The member for Grey has four minutes.

Mr. McKessock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It concerns me that the government has had two chances in the last year to deal with two federal governments, two different parties. I don’t know what the problem is, but they seem to have trouble getting along with either of them. I will certainly support this government when they try to get money from the federal government, but I don’t want to hear them blaming this on the feds. The other provinces probably blamed it on the feds too, but the governments of the other provinces went out and gave assistance to their farmers. That is all we are asking for: the same assistance that other provinces in Canada are giving their farmers.

The member for Chatham-Kent (Mr. Watson) mentioned that the farmers don’t want assistance. If he ever intends to become Minister of Agriculture and Food, I hope he gets out into Ontario and looks at other counties besides his own. Maybe things are better down there, but this resolution is of particular importance to my riding, because Grey county has the second largest agricultural acreage of any county of Ontario, according to this government’s survey, Also included in the riding is the rich farmland of Minto township in Wellington county and the Melancthon township in Dufferin county.

I would like to welcome those people who are here today from my riding and all farmers who are here from across Ontario.

I want to thank the members who took part in this debate on the present and future of agriculture in Ontario. I urge all members to support the vote on this resolution at 5:45 p.m. this afternoon if they like to eat.

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture presented a brief to the Premier and the cabinet one year ago, and on page 11 it states: “This government has indicated its intention to provide incentives for industries, particularly to the automobile manufacturers, to stimulate Ontario’s manufacturing sector. Ontario agriculture is facing serious competition from the treasuries of other provinces and other countries. It requires just as great a commitment from this government as does the manufacturing industry.” The OFA was asking for these same things one year ago, and they are supporting this resolution here today.

Ontario spends less than 1.5 per cent of its provincial budget on agriculture -- a smaller percentage than any of the other nine provinces in Canada. Ontario seems to have no problem coming in 10th these days. The Quebec livestock commissioner says that, by 1982, Quebec will be producing close to half of Canada’s hogs. By 1985, they will not have to depend on eastern Ontario for feeder pigs.

Both Ontario and Quebec farmers have been borrowing money to build barns in the past few years. Now that the crunch is on in both hogs and beefs, who is likely to survive? Will it be the farmers in Quebec with their 2.5 per cent and 8 per cent interest loans, or the Ontario farmers who are paying the full shot of 18 per cent and 19 per cent?

4:40 p.m.

On Tuesday evening a group of 500 concerned farmers in Bruce county met to discuss the current interest-rate problem; a great many of them are here today. A banker said after the meeting that the urgency of getting immediate assistance was not stressed enough that night. He said that within the next few weeks a lot of decisions are going to be made.

The minister must make an announcement within the next week or there is going to be real trouble. The farmers in Ontario are going to be in a very vulnerable position when contacted by some of the German and Arab money that is floating around for farm purchases. I know, because it has reached my township. We must give our farmers assistance on these interest rates to allow them to survive and encourage them at this time.

Statistics Canada said there was going to be a 12 per cent drop in the net income in Canada. It is going to be 40 per cent in Ontario. I couldn’t understand that until I realized that --

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The honourable member’s time has expired.

That completes the allotted time for ballot item 5, and it will be dealt with further at 5:50.

GAME AND FISH AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Philip moved second reading of Bill 15, An Act to amend the Game and Fish Act.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, I would like to commence my address to this House by expressing my appreciation to the various groups which over the last two years have shown interest in the problems addressed by this bill: to Annette Christensen of the Toronto Humane Society, to Lloyd Cook of the Ontario Trappers’ Association, and to the presidents and members of various animal protection groups who have been so very generous of their time. They have shown great patience with me as I continued to ask one question after another.

One person in particular, Avril Mitchell, deserves special mention for the work that she has done. Mrs. Mitchell is the executive assistant to the New Democratic Party House leader, the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel). She has made the passage and implementation of the bill a personal mission, and there are few members in this House who have not been lobbied by her on the merits of this bill. I would also like to thank the members of all parties who have asked for more information and who have shown interest and support for the bill.

Lastly, I would like to say that I appreciate the interest and the support shown by the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Auld). He has informed me that he will be voting for this bill and that he supports its principle. I met with him and his staff, and I have drafted some minor amendments based on input from various groups and based on some of his own views on the bill. It is hoped by both the minister and myself that these amendments can be made expeditiously when this bill goes to committee of the whole and that the bill will receive third reading and royal assent as soon as possible.

The purpose of my bill is to restrict the use of body-gripping and leghold traps in urban areas. It exempts farmers in the protection of their property and licensed trappers. There are basically two types of trapping, one for fur and one for pest and predator control. The humane societies have box traps which anyone can borrow for trapping and control of urban pest wildlife.

I have a small model of such a trap here, and any member can easily examine it and see how efficiently it works. This is the kind of trap that should be used by the inexperienced person in an urban area trying to deal with a pest problem. Because of their bulk, these devices are not suitable for trap lines. However, there is no reason whatsoever for not using them in an urban area where only one or two animals may be a problem.

My bill is supported by both licensed trappers and humane societies. I would like to read three letters that summarize the feelings of both of these groups, which are in support of the bill but for different reasons. First of all, I would like to quote from a letter from George Lyons, who is secretary-treasurer of the South Lake Simcoe Trappers’ Council, Sutton West. Mr. Lyons states in a letter to the Toronto Star:

“I commend Mr. Philip (NDP, Etobicoke) who recently introduced the private member’s bill prohibiting the sale to and the use of leghold traps to the general public.

“Lloyd Cook, president of the Ontario Trappers’ Association, has been trying for years to get legislation passed that would ensure the leghold trap could only be sold and would only be permitted to be used by licensed trappers.”

In the same vein, there is this from the Canadian Association for Humane Trapping:

“The Canadian Association for Humane Trapping fully endorses your bill to limit leghold and body-gripping traps to those persons holding a valid trapping licence or farmers experiencing nuisance animal problems.

“Most animal traps are tools which, if set and used by inexperienced persons, can cause serious damage, pain and stress to both domestic and wild animals. The problem of animals being caught in improperly set traps in urban and semi-urban areas has been frequent enough to cause growing concern to humane groups in many parts of Canada.

“As populations increase and land uses diversify we can expect an escalated occurrence of these incidents unless the use of trapping devices is limited to those persons who know how and where to set them. The humane potential of any trap, like the humane potential of a gun can only be realized by a person skilled in handling it.”

We have a letter from the Toronto Humane Society, stating: “Ed Philip recently introduced a private member’s bill in the Ontario Legislature prohibiting the use to the general public of body-gripping and leghold traps. Excepted from such a prohibition would be farmers, licensed trappers and people trapping rats and mice. The bill poses no threat to the fur industry.

“While the Toronto Humane Society would be delighted if people would show more respect for wild animals by banning all trapping, the society recognizes that the fur industry is currently firmly established in Canada and to expect a total ban would be unrealistic.

“The society therefore supports this bill since it is at least a step in the right direction. Last year the society received 68 complaints with respect to urban trapping. There are other and humane methods of dealing with the wildlife nuisance such as the box traps made available by the Toronto Humane Society.”

The Toronto Humane Society had asked all other Metro governments to support a Scarborough attempt in 1977 to ban the use of leghold traps. Only one borough, Etobicoke, failed to respond. Now I am happy to report that the council of Etobicoke has unanimously passed a motion in support of the bill before you. The bill has the support not only of the trappers and the humane societies, but also of the municipal politicians who deal with this problem at a local level.

Last year -- as was mentioned in the letter I just read -- 68 animals caught in these devices were picked up by the Toronto Humane Society. An average of two domestic animals per month -- dogs and cats -- are caught. One must multiply this by the number of other municipalities in Ontario to get some appreciation of the problem. Hundreds of animals are tortured every year in these devices, by people who do not know how to set or to secure them properly.

Many people would not take their pets to the humane society if they happened to be caught in these devices. Distance is one factor. Also, many people take their pets to the community veterinarian on a regular basis. To the number of animals the humane societies pick up, we can add those that are brought to veterinarians across the province.

I would like to read a report in the Scarborough Mirror of one incident where a pet was brought to a veterinarian.

“Dennis Jukes of West Hill was horrified last week when his cat crawled home dragging a steel trap on its front leg. The family pet Nicky was taken to a veterinarian, who was forced to amputate the mangled limb.

“Jukes, who lives on Clyde Road, said that the cat left the house on Sunday and did not return until the following Wednesday. I feel very strongly that somebody would do this kind of thing; he said. Not only did the trap catch our cat, but apparently other animals have been caught in this area.’” The letter goes on to give other, more gory details.

4:50 p.m.

The leghold and body-gripping traps in the hands of an unlicensed or an unknowledgeable trapper are a danger not only to the person setting the trap, but also to other human beings. A large animal caught in a leghold trap and not adequately secured is a danger to the first child or other person it runs into.

I have with me only a few pictures and I have picked some of the less gory for those who have stomachs that may not like something a bit more gruesome. I would share these pictures with members, and I have circulated them to the members at their desks.

The first picture is that of a skunk caught in one of these traps. A skunk can be a very dangerous and, needless to say, awkward animal if caught in such a trap. On the other hand, a skunk caught in a box trap similar to this one, or a larger facsimile of the same design, can be easily covered and quickly taken to the humane society where it may be disposed of.

The second picture is of a cat that is caught in a trap. I think this picture requires very little elaboration.

The third picture is a picture of a raccoon that starved to death because the trap was not anchored properly.

I have here a trap that was set by one such inexperienced person. Members will notice that it has a very short chain and that the person was foolish enough to think that somehow it could be secured by a piece of rope. When an animal is caught in something like this, it quickly chews the rope and can be caught by the chain somewhere else to die of starvation. Or in its fury, it could attack the first other animal, including a human being, that comes into contact with it.

The last picture is of a cat that was caught and lost its leg. Members will notice also, by the scratches around its face, that it has been badly mangled by some other animal. The animal was obviously caught in this. It was caught in a way that secured it but not very adequately. It completely immobilized it, and the animal was attacked by some other animal that we do not know.

There is no federal regulation of trapping. The Criminal Code of Canada disallows the trapping of animals kept for lawful purpose. There is also a prohibition from the wilful infliction of unnecessary pain and suffering. However, the humane societies inform me that to their knowledge there has been no successful conviction in this regard. The regulation of trapping is clearly a provincial responsibility.

As chairman of the standing administration of justice committee, I had the pleasure of presiding over a debate that provided enabling legislation from the province to the city of Toronto to ban the use of leghold traps within its boundaries. There were certain objections which the government had to this bill, objections that I could understand and empathize with. However, I am certain, as the minister will confirm when he speaks, that my amending bill overcomes these objections.

The city of Ottawa now has a bylaw similar to Toronto’s, but we must realize that these bylaws do not form a precedent for other municipalities. It is clearly up to us, as a provincial Legislature, to pass this bill which will make the use of leghold and body-gripping traps illegal in urban areas.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member has eight minutes remaining of the 20. Does he wish to reserve any of that time?

Mr. Philip: Yes, I wish to reserve it to answer any questions and points that members of the House may raise.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The full eight minutes?

Mr. Philip: Yes.

Mr. Lane: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support Bill 15 in principle, and I would like to say to my friend from Etobicoke that, if we had more private bills of this kind, I think we would see a lot fewer vetoes of private bills in this House. This is the type of thing we really should be discussing in this private members’ hour, and I will support the bill. However, having said that, and being a northerner, I must put on record some concerns that the trappers and the native people have about the bill.

I also want to point out that members of the government are as concerned as opposition members are about the most humane way to trap fur-bearing animals. Even in the rural areas of the north, pet dogs and cats often travel considerable distances from home and sometimes get caught in traps. This causes distress not only to the animal, but also to the owner.

I would like to take this opportunity to read a couple of paragraphs from a publication put out by the Ministry of Northern Affairs last October. It mentions special funding for the extended trapper education program being provided by the Ministry of Northern Affairs in support of the regular Natural Resources trapper education workshops, for which the Ministry of Northern Affairs has provided $150,000. A $360,000, five-year program is being funded by the Ministry of Northern Affairs, primarily for northern Ontario. It includes Indian band areas of the province. The Ministry of Natural Resources also sponsors workshops for the rest of the province.

Later on in the publication it says: “Northern Affairs has set aside $150,000 to be used over the next three years for the manufacture of a new foot-snare live trap developed last spring by the Ministry of Natural Resources. The foot-snare trap is lighter and less expensive than the traditional leghold type and applies very little pressure to the snared animal.” So we have put some dollars in the pot to help provide a more humane way to take fur-bearing animals.

I would like to refer briefly to a news column put out last November 7 by the Premier (Mr. Davis). One paragraph says: “The fur industry in Ontario generates more than $17 million in revenue each year. The government of Ontario, while recognizing the important contribution of the fur industry to our provincial economy, also holds a long-established commitment to develop better and more acceptable methods of harvesting furs. Indeed, to impose intentional or needless suffering on any living creature is unthinkable and a practice we firmly oppose.”

Further on in the same news column, the Premier says: “Fur trapping has long been a sensitive issue but one that requires a balanced perspective, attained through responsible and informed opinion. There is always room for improvement, and I’m proud to say that Ontario remains in the forefront of the drive to find sensitive and more humane methods of harvesting furs.” I wanted to put on the record that this government is in favour of the most painless way to take fur-bearing animals.

A few other statistics might be interesting to members of the House regarding the fur industry in the province. Two types of trapping licence are issued in this province. Last year, 2,800 licences were issued with exclusive training rights on crown land. In addition, 8,700 residents’ licences were sold to those ho trap on private property with the land owners’ permission. Many of this second group are located in southern Ontario, and a majority are part-time trappers, using trapping revenues as a supplementary income. The amount of wild fur harvesting during the 1978-79 season equalled about $20 million. This figure is expected to increase.

It goes on to say something about trap-line management. “Trap lines are carefully managed by the Ministry of Natural Resources. Strictly enforced quotas for particular species are imposed. The length of the trapping season is controlled and, where necessary, closed seasons are established to protect dwindling species. The end result of such a program is that the fur-bearing population is the highest ever, a level that could never have been imagined 30 years ago.”

5 p.m.

A great deal of public concern has surfaced over the use of leghold traps. The Ministry of Natural Resources is in the process of developing a humane live trap. It is based on a lasso principle and substantially reduces injury to the animal. In tests, a trapped animal has no cuts, chewed feet or broken bones. It has also proven to be as efficient in capturing and holding foxes, coyotes and raccoons as commonly used leghold traps. Ministry lawyers are currently attempting to obtain patents on this new live trap. Following this, manufacturers will be licensed to produce it.

Improving our fur industry has been a long-established goal of the Ontario government. Solid wildlife management, improved trapping techniques and proper enforcement of trap lines ensure the growth and improvement of our wildlife population and a key provincial industry. This is only an established, renewable natural resource. The trapping of wild fur was Canada’s first land-based industry and has produced an annual crop of fur for more than 800 years. Solid management will ensure Canadian trappers another 300 years of prosperity.

Those are a few facts regarding the industry.

I would like to mention that my friend the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) had intended to speak on this bill today, but his schedule took him out of town. I will express some of the concerns from his area. There is a group known as the Timmins Fur Council which is made up of about 100 people who are licensed to trap in that area. The fur harvest in Timmins brings in approximately $250,000 each year, most of which is spent in Timmins.

Timmins is one of the few cities in Canada which includes many acres of prime trapping land within its city limits; so trapping does improve the economy of that area.

I spoke to a fur council member this morning and was advised that they want to take fur-bearing animals in the most humane way possible, but they are not prepared to lose any revenue from this source.

I am sure this is the general feeling of the trappers in northern Ontario. I have many trappers in my riding. Many of them are native people who have provided a livelihood for themselves and their families for many generations. These people are good trappers. They are able to prepare the pelts for the market in excellent condition. While they too want to take animals in the most humane way possible, they still have to be able to make a living.

We will have to be flexible enough in legislation in this manner to allow these people to continue to be able to live from their profession and, at the same time, work into the system a more humane way of taking the animals. Therefore, a new trapping device must be as effective as the methods now used.

I hope what I have said will express our concerns about the income in northern Ontario that is received from trapping. I also hope it expresses the support of the principle of this bill by this government to prevent any needless pain and suffering of animals that are being trapped.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I certainly intend to support the bill in principle. I am very glad to hear, via the grapevine around here, that the bill is intended to go forward in government time for amendment in committee and will be enacted. Whether it actually goes on the statute books on the basis of private member’s legislation remains to be seen, but certainly the bill is extremely worthwhile and I am very glad to support it.

Actually, I was rather extensively lobbied by a very effective lobbyist, around here, a person many of us know reasonably well, Avril Mitchell. I want to give her a great deal of credit, not only for that, but also for the well-worded letter that appeared in the Toronto Star. Of course, the visual aspect of the letter was picked up by the fact that the Star editorial board decided that the picture of the honourable member who introduced the bill should appear along with the letter; so it’s all very worthwhile.

One of the reasons I am speaking on this bill is that at this moment there are probably 100 leghold traps set on my farm. A creek known as Fairchild Creek -- and I deny at once that it was named after me -- runs through the property, and at this time of year it is crawling with muskrats. I have given written permission to a farmer and a university student to trap the section of the creek through my property, and each year they take out a substantially large number of muskrats that are extremely valuable. There are still people who like to wear muskrat coats -- believe it or not, Miss Mitchell -- and whatever one thinks of that, they are very valuable. I know one young man who has contributed enormously to his own post-secondary education in this way, and a good friend of mine who is a farmer probably nets about $3,500 every spring from a relatively short section of the creek.

I don’t think the muskrats die a pleasant death, and I don’t suppose the pigs that are slaughtered at Canada Packers today die a pleasant death, but that doesn’t mean I am going to stop eating bacon with my eggs. I would also say that misuse of those traps is one of the most horrible things one could imagine, I am sure.

Over the Easter weekend, my wife and I were walking back through our creek property, and I found one of those traps, well removed from the creek. As a matter of fact, it was on the top of a hill, a quarter of a mile from the creek. The trap was well anchored to the ground, with the remains of a skunk still attached, and the grass that was just starting to grow was pounded flat in a radius of about two feet. When one thinks of the poor animal having suffered that agony, probably for many days before he finally came to extinction, and that the person who put that trap there had the callous, inhuman indifference not even to go back and check it, it is practically unthinkable -- except that it happens, and that is really why this bill is here before us.

Naturally, being a reasonable bill, it excludes licensed trappers. I know that the people I was referring to who trap on my property are licensed, and I can only trust that they were not responsible for the incident I have described. I intend to find out about that.

A good deal of trapping goes on in southwestern Ontario of the type that I have described earlier in my remarks as definitely productive. This type of trapping is not really interfered with by this bill, and I don’t think it should be.

I should also indicate that another extremely important use of leghold traps is the control of a cuddly little menace called a groundhog. We have about 250 acres on our farm. We had an aerial photograph taken of it at one stage for mapping purposes, and we were able to count something like 400 groundhog holes in the farm. It is not in any way the worst farm, because the usual control method is to persuade all my sons’ teenage friends -- I guess they are in their earlier 20s now -- to come up with their shotguns and help us control them. I don’t use leghold traps but many farmers use them for this purpose, because a method of controlling groundhogs is yet to be developed.

I phoned the experts in the Ministry of Natural Resources -- I haven’t phoned the minister about this yet, and I should have, because he is extremely knowledgeable in these matters -- about the more modern ways to control this pest, and really nobody knows. We use gasoline bombs, we use the exhaust from the tractor, and at one time we even pumped cyanide dust down there until we found that we were probably at much more risk than were even the groundhogs. But they are a very bad pest on the farm. The holes and the burrows actually use up a lot of productive land, and it is very difficult for implements and tractors to go over those bumps.

Actually, one of the best means of controlling groundhogs is foxes, which live in the burrows in the areas. If one looks at the refuse around the fox dens, groundhog bones are usually what are found more than anything else. Except there is some fantastic commitment on the part of great white hunters in the area to go out and kill foxes. There is nothing they like to do better than that, which is unfortunate in one respect.

The other side of that, of course, is that the foxes are very vulnerable to rabies. Not this past winter but a year ago, we lost two head of cattle to rabies, and I was the one that had to shoot the one animal. The other, when we weren’t sure what the illness was, actually died; it was then tested and found to have been rabid. It is expected that these animals were bitten by foxes or skunks who were rabid at the time. It is necessary that supervision and control form a part of any program.

5:10 p.m.

I am glad the Ministry of Natural Resources is going to embark on a program of anti-rabies vaccination. It’s not necessary to run around and catch these animals. Bait is put out which has the proper vaccine in it. I sincerely hope we can control this terrible disease. It is very rare for humans to get it, and there is treatment; but when animals get it, it is a terrible thing. It is not much fun to borrow the neighbour’s rifle, shoot the animal, drag it out and bury it. Naturally, there is economic loss, but there also are other traumas involved.

I like the way the bill has been drawn. I understand there are two or three amendments. I am not sure it will have much application in territory like my own, where farmers controlling pests and trappers who are licensed can probably find exemption under the terms of the bill. As in the city, there still are people in the country who are prepared to put traps out and catch domestic animals -- cats, dogs and so on -- but who do not have the basic humanity to supervise the traps to see that any animal trapped is destroyed without delay.

While not world-shaking, this bill is definitely useful, and I am glad not only to participate in debating it, but also to know it can go forward and either become law or become the basis of a law which will be enacted and enforced in this jurisdiction.

Mr. Isaacs: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and participate in this debate in support of the bill introduced by my colleague the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip).

I want to quote a very short paragraph written under an editorial pseudonym in the magazine BC Outdoors. It reads:

“The leghold truss is the most barbaric form of torture man has inflicted on the animal kingdom. As its name suggests, the trap catches its victim around the leg or paw and holds it in a vice-like grip between steel jaws. The trap, invented some 300 years ago, is still as primitive as the ages which spawned it. The trapped animal or bird awaits death by, first, starvation or exposure, torture that can last for days and even weeks. The most kindly fate is for one of its enemies to appear; then death is relatively fast. Another way of dying is for the victim to rip off or chew off a foot or leg. Since nature has no sympathy for the deformed, this mutilation condemns most animals (predators in particular) to the slow death of starvation.”

The bill is long overdue. It may not have the province-shattering importance of the previous debate, but I think it is unfortunate that it has been overlooked so long. It is something the government could have dealt with some years ago and which we are left now to deal with through this mechanism of private members’ hour.

It is fortunate there is support, apparently on all sides of the House, for this measure -- support that is very welcome and very necessary because of some problems I will get to in a moment. It is support we can appreciate without having to listen to the kinds of argument that took place in the previous debate, which in my view was degenerating on the government side into a tirade against the unfortunate economic situation of Quebec.

The problem this bill deals with is not academic. We do not have to engage in partisan debate because of the inability of the government to deal with the situation. It is a problem that is here, today, in our urban areas.

I didn’t want to upset the order and decorum of the House, but I have in the corridor outside a leghold trap which was fished from the waters of a public park area in the city of Hamilton just two weeks ago by an inspector for the Hamilton Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. These traps are being set in urban areas, often by inexperienced people, in ways that pose a real hazard to the public and to domestic pets, as well as to wild animals that might legitimately be caught.

The inspector concerned, Inspector Bandow of the Hamilton Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, wrote to me along these lines, and I would like to quote just a couple of sentences from his letter. “Leghold devices are presently readily available in the city of Hamilton from a number of hardware dealers. The devices are purchased by unsuspecting members of the public. They frequently believe they have purchased a killer trap in order to trap nuisance animals like skunks, raccoons and squirrels. Once trapped, however, we [the Humane Society] are called to free the animal from restraint. Unfortunately, because of extensive injuries, these animals suffer needlessly. More often than not, a neighbourhood pet gets caught, which may not only cause injury to the animal but often results in needless neighbourhood confrontations.”

The humane society inspector described to me how on a number of occasions very recently the HSPCA has been called to deal with animals that have been caught in one of these leghold traps. The animal is in a state of rage, as one can expect, and it is impossible for a human being to approach. The only remedy open to the humane society, be the animal a skunk, a raccoon or a domestic dog or cat, is to shoot it from a safe distance. One problem is leading to another. The use of firearms to shoot animals caught in traps in the city is to me absolutely abhorrent. We shouldn’t be allowing the situation which leads to that need.

This morning I was demonstrating to an interested individual, a leghold trap which the humane society lent to me. I set the trap. It was one that had a fairly weak spring, because I haven’t yet been able to set the one that was fished up out of the stream and I have in the corridor, the spring is so powerful. But I used one that had a weak spring and could be set quite readily. I triggered it with a pencil. These are the two parts of the pencil. One attempt, triggering the trap with the pencil, and the pencil was immediately split. If one inspects the pencil closely, it is very clear that before breaking it was thoroughly compressed. There is tremendous force in the steel jaws under the spring tension of the trap.

When those traps are used in urban areas, when they are used in residential neighbourhoods, when they are placed by persons unknown in waterways to which the public has access, that spring force could very easily be applied to the leg of a dog or cat, or possibly even to the fingers of a child who was walking through that park area and who decided to play in the watercourse.

The legislation is long overdue, and it is very sensible legislation. It does not infringe on the rights of hunters, trappers and native people at the present time. I hope that in time humane traps will be developed and will be available for commercial and farm use and that leghold traps and body-gripping traps can be outlawed entirely from this province. For the time being, my colleague in his wording of this bill has taken the only sensible course, which is to ensure there is no interference with the need for disposal of vermin and for those who are engaged in commercial trapping operations. When the alternative comes, I hope the government will be swift to ensure that the alternative humane trap is made the only legal trap for legitimate and quasi-legitimate trappers, hunters and farmers across this province.

5:20 p.m.

To show how important this issue is and how much we should be concerned about humane trapping as well as about our treatment of animals here in Ontario -- just as many people in this province are concerned about the humanity of the seal hunt and of other operations that go on outside our province -- I would like to close with an extract from an article put together by the Association for the Protection of Fur-Bearing Animals. That association writes:

“On land, the animal dies by starvation, freezing, attack by other animals, thirst, or a blow from the trapper’s club. If the trapper does not visit his trap line frequently, this can mean that this needless agony goes on for days or even weeks.

“Some animals escape by chewing off or wringing off their paw. This is called a wring-off. What the trapper sees on his return is only the animal’s paw left in the trap. Infection and reduced capacity to manage in the demanding life of the wilds usually dooms such escapees to yet further suffering and certain death.”

We are a humane society. It is time that we moved away from this barbaric torture of wild animals and of domestic pets that are inadvertently caught in these traps when they are set, frequently in urban areas. I commend this bill to the House.

Mr. Jones: Mr. Speaker, as did the members before me, I rise to support this bill. I do so because I believe the principles behind the bill calling for humane trapping are valid and because this bill is a logical extension of the programs and initiatives which the government has had in place in this regard for many years.

I am happy to see that the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) is with us today, and the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Auld), because they too have taken a very current part in the initiatives that this bill seeks to address.

At the outset, I would like to mention briefly the role the trapper has traditionally played in Ontario. I would also like to examine the support role that this government has provided, being in the forefront of the development of new methods in humane trapping.

I am sure we all agree that the concept of urban trapping is a relatively new phenomenon. As the member for Mississauga North, I have discussed this with my colleagues the member for Mississauga East (Mr. Gregory) and the member for Mississauga South (Mr. Kennedy). They have had discussions with constituents and have expressed a shared concern because, in the Mississauga area and the Peel area generally, we have large wooded areas. We have a lot of urbanization mixed in that community, and we hear and see incidents such as were described by speakers before us.

The legacy of the trapper is still being carried on by more than 10,000 individuals in this province whose livelihoods depend either fully or partly on trapping, These trappers form a bedrock of an industry that has witnessed rapid expansion and prosperity in recent years. What is perhaps more important -- I think it is something we sometimes tend to lose sight of -- trappers, most of whom are dedicated professionals, perform a service that is increasingly vital to successful provincial wildlife management.

Time and time again, we have seen that trapping is a necessary means to the control of depredating wildlife, and it is extremely useful in preventing the overcrowding of fur- bearers and large-scale dieoffs through starvation and disease that would otherwise take place. Quite significantly, trapping is seen as an aid to the reduction of human and animal exposure to rabies, such as was described to us by the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon).

A trapline management program has been in existence in Ontario since 1946. It has been acclaimed worldwide as the greatest conservation achievement of the century. Without going into too much detail, the program calls for the enforcement of strict quotas for particular species, control of the length of the trapping season, and the establishment, where necessary, of closed seasons to protect diminishing species. These initiatives undoubtedly help account for the relatively healthy levels of population of most fur-bearers that we enjoy here in Ontario.

In southern Ontario alone we have more than 50 wildlife management areas being developed by the Ministry of Natural Resources with an eye to increasing opportunities for outdoor recreation and where the land is being developed specifically for wildlife. Efficient management of fur-bearing animals is necessarily linked to Ontario’s system of wildlife management, and our approach to both is based on a deep and fundamental respect for the animal world.

The wilful infliction of needless suffering on any living creature is, beyond a shadow of a doubt, a practice this government is strictly opposed to. In fact, Ontario has been in the forefront of the drive to develop efficient, more humane trapping techniques. Since 1972, the Ministry of Natural Resources has operated a trap-testing development program. The ministry has acted also as a catalyst in the federal-provincial committee for humane trapping, which continues to receive our avid and dedicated support.

In the light of the increasing concern over the use of these leghold traps, which we heard so vividly explained to us this afternoon, particularly in the land setting, the ministry’s testing and development program has worked intently on examining the feasibility of a variety of traps submitted to them. Many of these traps were necessarily rejected.

However, as the member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Lane) outlined for us, the ministry has developed a new device known as the foot-snare live trap. This is a trap that provides an alternative to the leghold trap, designed to encircle the animal’s foot like a lasso and where a more gentle pressure holds the animal in place without pain or injury. Because of its flexibility and effective tension mechanism, the trap may be used for catching foxes, coyotes, wolves and possibly lynx and fisher.

I think that all who share the opinions we have heard expressed in the debate today are happy to see this new trap, which has been heralded as the first workable and worthwhile holding device since the introduction of the cone bear-trap, and that it is now, as the member mentioned, available to the stage where the ministry’s lawyers are currently attempting to obtain the patent to bring it into being. The Minister of Northern Affairs, on my left, has designated some $150,000 towards the private manufacture of that device; we all take considerable pleasure in that.

I understand from the minister that the trap is going to be made available free of charge for test purposes to trappers across the province. It acknowledges that most part-time trapping in Ontario is carried out in the southern regions of the province, as one of the members defined, in his own farm, in his own area.

5:30 p.m.

It is in the urban environment, naturally, where the chance for serious and unwarranted accidents probably most often occur. It follows that the use of animal traps in more heavily populated areas must be regulated in such a way as to work towards eliminating the risk, which also has to include the harm to domestic animals, as was mentioned by the mover of the amendment bill, to adults and particularly to children.

In the instance of urban trapping, the newly developed foot snare trap we have had described to us can play a particularly useful and effective role, since the trap would reduce or eliminate the risk of injury to those peoples or animals for whom the trap is clearly not intended.

The basic intent and humane spirit of this bill -- and I compliment the member who brought it to the House -- are reflective of the kind of attitude and approach held by all members of this House. I, too, join him in happily observing that there appears to be unanimity in support of this bill. But I think it would not be proper to exclude another important facet because, whether it be the trap with the new loop or whether it be one of the box traps, as described by the mover of the bill, the fact seems to remain that there is more to the issue.

The supervision that was mentioned for any kind of trap is important. Education is a salient point in the development and maintenance of a safe and healthy trapping environment. For this reason, the government is committed to implementing a comprehensive education program designed to inform and educate both the general public and trappers.

The Ministry of Natural Resources has operated trapper workshops throughout Ontario since 1974. Here, novices and professionals alike are trained in the newest, most humane methods of trapping. The Ontario Trappers’ Association, in co-operation with Georgian College, conducts fur management courses in Parry Sound, South River, Bracebridge, Dorset, Barrie, Orillia and other centres. We all feel it’s lust and proper that we should encourage the safe and ethical use of traps. I, for one, remain confident that trapping will continue to play a positive role in our economy and in preserving our natural heritage by maintaining the spirit of mutual trust and co-operation. Ontario can continue to set the high standards of excellence in the field of trapping that it has in the past.

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak for a moment or two in support of the honourable member’s bill. I wish to commend the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) in bringing forth this bill and providing an opportunity for both urban and rural people to be able to speak from their experience.

I represent a riding which has a great many licensed trappers under the Ministry of Natural Resources. I have always threatened that one of these weekends I am going to go out on the trap line with some of our people and see just what does happen. I do have many people calling me who are looking for opportunities to get into the trapping business, and I know interest is increasing all the time. In my riding also, we are very concerned with what is happening in this field. We have Sir Sandford Fleming College at Lindsay, a natural resources school. I know the students there are very interested in what happens to the field of trapping. There is also the Leslie Frost Centre at Dorset.

I am pleased to see the bill does exempt farmers and licensed trappers. It’s my experience that people who are licensed under the ministry certainly know what they are doing and are doing a good job. I have heard very few complaints at all. I have kept a very good liaison with ministry managers in Lindsay, Minden and Bancroft. I have had excellent co-operation from them. At all times, they are available to explain just what is happening in regard to trapping and the various traps. I appreciate that very much.

I feel it’s important that the business of trapping should continue, because the fur industry is certainly a big industry in the economy of this province. However, it is important that this work be in the hands of those who are skilled and that we limit as much as possible the misuse of these traps.

I think it’s important, and I strongly support the banning of these traps in urban areas. Many people, as I do, have pets, and I think it’s very unfortunate indeed when they come in contact with this type of trap.

My only recommendation is that the Ministry of Natural Resources continue to monitor and to develop new humane trends in the field of trapping.

I do support the bill, and I commend the member for introducing the bill for debate here today.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on this bill, and I would like, as the others have done, to commend my colleague the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) for submitting this bill. He and I have had some discussion about it. I know his deep concern on this matter, I also know there are economic matters he would have liked to have had dealt with in this private member’s bill, and there are human matters he would have liked to have dealt with in this private member’s bill, but he set those aside to have this very important matter promoted. I guess it is a very humane matter. In fact, I suggest it’s almost a moral issue as well.

These leghold traps are used legitimately by the two groups that have been mentioned: farmers who need a form of pest control and trappers. I suggest that practically all other uses of the leghold trap are uses which should not be permitted. This is what this bill actually does. All other uses includes people who set them out to deliberately catch raccoons or skunks or squirrels or some other innocent animals, animals which are going about in the normal course of events to get their food and are suddenly caught in these traps and suffer great pain, often for long periods of time.

These traps are cruel in every respect, and there are alternatives to their use which have already been mentioned. There are the box traps, in the case of skunks. I am given to understand that the traps which are used within urban areas are used in an endeavour to catch skunks, yet there are now chemicals which can be put on lawns so the skunks won’t bother them.

There is some risk to humans in the use of these traps. There are occasions in this province where a child has been caught in one of these traps. It is significant that most countries in the world now have legislated against the use of leghold traps. Granted, many other countries do not have a trapping industry, as we do here, and therefore are not adversely affected. But most countries have now abolished the use of these leghold traps.

The incidence of domestic animals getting caught in these traps is very high in the urban centres. I checked with the city of Welland, and two weekends ago they had three complaints from citizens about domestic animals being caught in these traps and they had to investigate them. The city of St. Catharines reported there were 30 complaints last year of animals being caught in these leghold traps. The majority of them were skunks or squirrels, but six of them were domestic animals.

5:40 p.m.

I have some gory stories that I won’t take time to repeat, with one exception. There was a raccoon at the pollution control plant in the city of Welland that became a pet of the operators. One morning, that raccoon was missing. It was gone for a whole day. The next day it came back dragging on its back foot a leghold trap and with its front foot eaten off, likely by the raccoon itself. Similar tales could be told in many instances. Anybody who sees, or even hears about one of those occasions, I think would support this bill.

This bill has been carefully designed. It will impose no hardship on trappers or farmers who have a legitimate use for the traps. But, of course, all of us hope there will be a new trap designed which will do away with the cruel types used at present.

What hasn’t been mentioned, and what also is important about this bill, is that except for the two groups, it makes the prohibition of these leghold traps uniform across the province. There is permissive legislation now -- or there is going to be -- for a municipality, at least in the Toronto area, to pass a bylaw. But province-wide application is preferable, first, because there will be public knowledge of it and, second, because enforcement is difficult for a local municipality. I assume when the bill is brought in by the Minister of Natural Resources it will have a clause whereby enforcement will be by his officials and staff.

I conclude by saying that the proposal is so reasonable that I don’t know why it wasn’t enacted into legislation years ago. I had hoped the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Auld) would speak on this bill and would publicly give a commitment in Hansard that he would either bring in a bill of his own or, preferably, let this bill go through the three readings. I understand that is his intent. I would have liked to have seen that put in stone at this time.

I am pleased to support this bill and, again, to commend my colleague from Etobicoke for introducing it

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the members of the House for what appears to be fairly unanimous support for the bill.

I would like to comment on a few of the ideas mentioned by each of the speakers. My friend the member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Lane) expressed the concerns of his colleague from Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) concerning trap lines in the north that run through certain urban areas.

I would point out to the member that under section 3 of this bill he will notice that: “The minister may by order designate areas or municipalities in Ontario in which the prohibition set out in subsection 2 does not apply.” That section is being put in specifically to overcome the fears of the people he may have spoken to.

I appreciate the remarks of the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon). As he correctly acknowledges, the licensed trapper to whom he has given permission to trap on his property will not be affected by this bill. Irresponsible people, most likely unlicensed trappers, who are probably trespassing on his property, will be affected by this bill and, it is hoped, by other legislation which will in future make it an offence to sell these devices to anyone not holding a trapping licence.

Some trappers’ groups have also asked for legislation to make it impossible for someone to obtain a trapping licence without first undergoing courses, and some of the members have talked about the need for such programs. My colleague, the member for Wentworth (Mr. Isaacs), has correctly pointed out how ignorant people can misuse these devices -- someone who goes into the hardware store and says he has a pest problem, but has no idea what the pest is, and buys a device from someone who is equally ignorant of how to use it.

The Toronto Humane Society has found animals that have been sliced in the face by people who have actually put bait in these traps, and other traps where someone has actually welded sawblades to the trap. Obviously one of the purposes of this bill is to legislate against such people. Another is to act as an educational process. I hope the bill, its debate and the publicity surrounding it, will help to do that.

My neighbour the member for Mississauga North (Mr. Jones) mentioned that the development of humane traps has been long in coming, and they are still on an experimental basis. I would point out to him, however, that an amendment I will be introducing in committee of the whole House will allow the minister to designate a trap as humane and exempt it from this bill should such a device finally be invented and the tests prove favourable.

The member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Eakins) mentioned the great number of letters and telephone calls he has received in support of the bill. Few private members’ bills have received such attention through letters to the editor and telephone calls from the public, and one can only compliment all those citizens who took such trouble.

The member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) states that this is a moral issue. Such issues frequently attract public attention, and I am happy that our society is still sensitive enough to be concerned about them.

Once again, I thank the members for their support. I thank the minister and his staff for their co-operation and their support, and I hope all members will vote in favour of this bill.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr. Speaker: The first question to be decided this afternoon is resolution 3, standing on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. McKessock. Any member objecting to this question being placed before the House should now rise.

Resolution concurred in.

GAME AND FISH AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Speaker: The second question to be decided is Bill 15, standing in the name of Mr. Philip. Any member objecting to this question being placed before the House should now rise.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

5:50 p.m.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to standing order 13, I would like to indicate to the House the order of business for the rest of this week and next week.

Tonight, of course, we will be engaged in the emergency debate on the motion by the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Cassidy).

Tomorrow we will continue the debate on the speech from the throne.

On Monday, April 14, in the afternoon there will be the windup to the throne speech debate, with the vote on the main motion and the amendment at six o’clock.

On Tuesday, April 15, in the afternoon we will consider legislation: Bill 2, the Drainage Amendment Act; Bill 26, the Live Stock and Live Stock Products Amendment Act, second reading; Bill 15, the Game and Fish Amendment Act, committee stage; and Bill 6, the Durham Municipal Hydro-Electric Service Amendment Act, second reading. In the evening we will consider legislation: Bill 7, the Welfare Units Repeal Act, second reading and committee stage; and Bill 1, the Libel and Slander Amendment Act, second reading.

On the afternoon of Thursday, April 17, we will consider private members’ public business ballot items 7 and 8. In the evening we will debate reports on the Order Paper: first, order 19, Ontario Highway Transport Board report; and, second, order 20, the report from the standing public accounts committee.

On Friday, April 18, we will deal with the supplementary estimates still remaining from 1979-80 in the following order: Community and Social Services, Culture and Recreation, Health, Colleges and Universities, and Education.

The House recessed at 5:51 p.m.