Journal des débats 1982-déc-06 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Speaker: Before proceeding, I would ask all honourable members to join with me in welcoming the federal parliamentary interns who are guests of the provincial parliamentary interns and are gathered in the Speaker's gallery.

PROVINCIAL AUDITOR

Mr. Speaker: I advise all honourable members that I have pleasure in tabling the annual report of the Provincial Auditor of Ontario for the year ending March 31, 1982.

SALE OF RENTAL UNITS

Mr. Peterson: On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker: On Tuesday, November 30, I directed a question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie) with respect to a refusal by both Crown Trust and Greymac Trust to grant access to their books by a member of my research staff. Such access is required under section 91 of the Loan and Trust Corporations Act.

On Thursday, December 2, I sent an open letter to the minister setting out the full particulars of Greymac Trust's and Crown Trust's refusal to make their books available, as by law they are required to do. On Friday my research staff attempted to contact the responsible persons in the financial institutions division of the ministry in this regard.

On Monday, December 6, my research staff did contact the financial institutions division. However, they advised that the minister had not sent my letter on to them, or in any event they had not received it. However, we were advised, regarding the section 91 requirements of the Loan and Trust Corporations Act, "The act speaks for itself."

I want to remind the minister that the provisions of subsection 91(5) are mandatory, and I quote, "Such books ... shall be open during business hours for inspection by any ... depositor" or by "his agent." The minister is responsible to this House for enforcing or failing to enforce legislation passed by this House. I must insist that the minister enforce the Loan and Trust Corporations Act, particularly section 91, or answer in this House as to why he is refusing to do so.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, it is not accurate to say the letter has not been referred to the division. It may not have reached that individual's hands, but the letter has been referred to the financial institutions division for its review and advice to me.

I guess there are two issues. First is the private remedies of an individual with respect to rights given under that legislation, and second is whether or not the ministry has any role to play in assisting individuals in exercising their rights in that area. That is the matter this division is looking into and when I have that information I will provide it to the member.

Mr. Speaker: For the information of the honourable member, I must point out that was not a matter of privilege but should have been brought up under oral questions. We will now start oral questions and I will recognize the Leader of the Opposition.

ORAL QUESTIONS

WAGE AND PRICE RESTRAINT PROGRAM

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer, the man who in his last budget brought in taxes on hamburgers, puppies and guppies and chocolate bars, and taxed young people and drove their parents to drink in the process. Now, of course, we are bringing in increases in beer prices in this province.

How can the Treasurer possibly justify, in a time of restraint when he is trying to pilot a restraint program through this House, a series of increases on beer that will violate his own restraint guideline? The ad valorem tax grab from the increase in beer prices will go up 8.3 per cent beyond his own guideline. Out of the 50-cent increase in a case of beer, 23.7 per cent of that increase will be provincial taxes; it will be those ad valorem taxes as well as the retail sales tax.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I believe the request for an increase in the price of beer was handled by the committee headed by my colleague the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie), as all administered prices are to be. My understanding was it was 4.9 per cent for one year effective December 31.

Mr. Peterson: I assume the Treasurer is still responsible for tax policy and is aware his own tax initiatives are violating the guidelines, but I would remind the Treasurer that since December 1981 the price of beer has increased by 15.2 per cent. The share to the brewers has increased by 13.7 per cent while federal taxes have increased 15.9 per cent, but the provincial sales taxes and ad valorem taxes have gone up 18.4 per cent in the last year.

At a time of inflation of about 11 per cent, at a time when he is asking for wage restraint from many sectors in this province, how can he justify that kind of increase over the last year?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I have been corrected. The effective date is December 9 until December 31, 1983. It is for a period of more than a year.

It seems to me that in the last two or three years the breweries have asked for two and sometimes more increases per year as costs escalated in that industry. In the old days we used to approve the price. Now, in effect, we have a veto on it. Therefore, it fell under the administered price jurisdiction. We changed the technique about a year ago now because, if the member asks my opinion, it was probably best left to the breweries to decide whether they could or could not increase the price of beer.

However, we have accepted that it is regulated. Therefore, they have stayed below the five per cent for a full-year period. That is all. They are below five per cent. I believe if the member checks, we have either the cheapest or the second cheapest beer in Canada.

2:10 p.m.

Mr. Peterson: The question surely is one that the minister has to respond to. We have established already that the government percentage, the tax take, is going up beyond the five per cent. Even though the overall price -- and the minister is right on the 60-cent increase -- is 4.9 per cent, the government tax take is going up more than that.

How can the minister impress upon people in this province that he is serious about controlling inflation when this is one more instance where he is not using his authority to bring prices under control, particularly when the tax take is going up more than the five per cent guideline? Surely he is destroying the efficacy of the government's own program.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I suspect had we looked into the true cost pass-through principle on beer and allowed all the changes in cost there would have been more of an increase, in fact, than 4.9 per cent. I do not know where the member does his arithmetic. He is sliding back into time to the point where I made a budgetary change in May and he is mixing it up.

I have an ad valorem tax on beer like I have had on liquor for years and years. It is a percentage of the selling price. If the selling price goes up 4.9 per cent, my take goes up 4.9 per cent.

GAINS PAYMENTS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Provincial Secretary for Social Development. We had a discussion on Friday with respect to the plight of elderly women. As I understood her position on Friday, she was under the impression that the plight of elderly women is not particularly serious in this province. Her information flies in the face of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada, the select committee on pensions, the Royal Commission on the Status of Pensions in Ontario, the Metro study which was published last week and a variety of other studies that would disagree with her.

In addition to that, last April the Premier (Mr. Davis), in a speech to the Toronto Society of Financial Analysts, said: "First we would ensure that the problems of the existing elderly, particularly single people, can be taken care of by adjusting income guarantees from guaranteed income supplement and through provincial programs such as guaranteed annual income supplement. This will be a main priority in our own pension reform effort. In this instance, government alone has the responsibility and the resources to solve it."

Would that not say to the minister that her responsibility must be, as the secretary responsible, to spearhead the drive for pension reform and, in the short run, solve the immediate problem of our elderly women by increasing the amount of Gains?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, I did not deny on Friday that single elderly people were living with many needs. I did point out to the honourable member that this government has considered the recommendations of the pension reform commission. Our Premier has indicated, as this government has indicated, that the senior citizens of this province have always been our first priority.

I did attempt, and probably very foolishly, to point out to the honourable member that at this time there are many other groups in society who are having difficulty, but at no time did I indicate that this particular group did not require our attention. I think I indicated to him that it was being given full consideration. I also pointed out to him that the figures which the Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto provided to him were not exactly factual. I would like to bring him up to date.

The annual guaranteed income levels for persons over 65 -- I might add that for everyone over 65 there is no differential in the age group -- was $6,524.28. That is through old age security, the GIS and the Gains-A, the guaranteed annual income supplement for the aged which we top up. This is a well-known fact; and the figures just do not jibe with the facts and figures given by the social planning council.

I would like to share with members that there are some 4,000 senior citizens over 65 in the province who are recipients of family benefits allowances. These people do not qualify for old age security because of the residency requirement and in many instances the sponsorships have fallen down. They receive the equivalent of a Gains-D allowance plus the benefits that accrue to all those seniors over 65.

Mr. Peterson: We have two problems to address. We have to address immediately the problem of the existing retired poor, and that is one way to do it, as the minister knows and the Premier has admitted as much as that.

We also have to address the long-term programs through a whole system of pension reform in this province, an issue upon which the government has been dragging its feet. I am being charitable when I say that.

Is the minister aware of the Supreme Court of Canada decision which came down this morning in the Leatherdale case? I remind the minister, it was a case involving Mrs. Leatherdale, who paid all of the living expenses for her husband while her husband paid into their pension plan and, upon divorce, the Ontario Supreme Court and Ontario Court of Appeal did not award any benefits to her. The Supreme Court of Canada this morning upset that judgement and said she was entitled to some of those benefits under the terms of his pension plan.

Had we had pension reform here, had Ontario law reform gone far enough to include the spouse in those kinds of pension benefits, we would not have had to wait two or three years, just as we are waiting interminably for changes in the child-rearing drop-out provision. We are the only province now exercising that veto. We need reform for part-time workers, a number of whom happen to be women. Why won't the minister, as the person responsible for a number of these people, take the responsibility to lead in terms of pension reform in this as well as in a number of other areas?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: We have passed along recommendations in all those areas of pension reform and we are awaiting consideration of them.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, the minister's own Task Force on Ageing pointed out that it costs a single person as much as a couple to provide many necessities. That was the basis for their recommendation that the benefits for single people over 65 should be raised to 60 per cent of what is given to seniors who are married.

I would ask the minister a very simple question: is she saying that she disagrees with that recommendation, or is she saying the government cannot afford $102.6 million maximum that this recommendation would cost? Which is she saying? Is she saying she disagrees with it or is she saying she is not going to spend that money at this time?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, I did not say that I did not agree with the recommendation. It has been a recommendation from the social policy field that it be increased to 60 per cent of the married couple's --

Mr. Rae: My question is, does the minister agree with it?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Yes.

Mr. Peterson: The minister should understand the frustration of those of us in opposition, because we frankly do not understand what she is saying from day to day. Her response to my first supplementary was, I gather, she had made recommendations and was waiting for a response.

My question is, what are those recommendations she has made with respect to pension reform? To whom were they made? When were they made? From whom is she awaiting a response? When are we going to have action with respect to pension reform in this province?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Some time ago these recommendations were made to the Treasurer. I am not suggesting those --

Mr. Rae: Now we finally know the answer.

UNFAIR MORTGAGE PRACTICES

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. It concerns the question of closed mortgages and the fact that there are literally thousands of Ontarians who are unable to take advantage of lowering interest rates.

Is the minister aware of any practices or penalties that are being imposed by lending institutions on borrowers for mortgages that he would regard as unconscionable or unfair? Is he aware of any of those practices?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, if the member is talking about practices with respect to the opening of previously closed mortgages, no; quite honestly, I cannot recall that I have had any particular matter brought to my attention.

2:20 p.m.

Mr. Rae: I would like to bring some to the minister's attention, since I have been --

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Surprise, surprise.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That's what they call leading the witness.

Interjections.

Mr. Rae: I know the minister is eager to hear about these and I would like him to hear about this particular case.

Mr. Speaker: Question please.

Mr. Rae: The question concerns Mr. and Mrs. Polanka in Sudbury, who signed a mortgage with a five-year term at the rate of 21 per cent in October of 1981. Mr. Polanka has just been advised by his employer, Falconbridge Nickel Mines, that he is one of the employees who will be permanently laid off in the new year. When he phoned the Toronto Dominion Bank to inquire about paying off his mortgage and possibly renewing at the lower rate, he was initially advised that if he paid a three-month penalty he would be able to terminate that mortgage and negotiate another mortgage.

When he was given the discharge statement, which I have here to show to the minister, it shows the phrase "three months' interest at mortgage rate" was crossed out and replaced by the initials IRD -- interest rate differential -- $3,524.07. Whereas initially the three-month penalty would have been $1,100, that has subsequently been changed to a mere $2,305.20.

Is the minister aware of the practices of the Toronto Dominion Bank with respect to something called the interest rate differential? Does he not agree that the effect of the imposition of this kind of term on the renewal is going to prevent a great many Ontarians from being able to take advantage of lower interest rates?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I seem to have recollections of hearing about that particular case some few weeks ago, but I must confess I do not have the exact details fresh in my mind.

Without trying to defend or criticize in the absence of having a more perfect recollection of events, let me say by way of background that the member knows and I know that during these difficult times with interest rates everybody has had problems, including banks, trust companies and credit unions. He is well aware of that. They have had problems in matching their long-term loans with their long-term deposits and in matching their short-term loans with their short-term deposits, and ending up with some balance which allows survival of the institution.

I am not saying that is the case in this case, but the member knows and I know that has been a fundamental problem that has faced all the lending institutions. In the case of the credit unions, they are just recently starting to come out of that horrendous period that caused them great difficulty.

Regarding the particular situation referred to, I do not recollect the exact details. I recall a case like this, or maybe it was this one in particular. I certainly will review it and get back to the member.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware that some institutions are charging anything upwards from a three-month penalty -- and you are lucky if you can get it; some are five months, some are six months or even longer? Is the minister satisfied that he has enough information at hand to say that all these lending institutions are balancing their long-term liabilities against their deposits? Or are they using this as a convenient excuse to try to recoup some of the profits that have slid in the last few years?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that one can talk generally about an industry. I can talk specifically about an industry I have had the occasion to look into in particular, and that is the credit union industry. I know it is now rallying from a very difficult period of matching those investments against loans. I suspect it has been the same in the trust industry and the banking industry.

Whether or not there should be payment of a penalty for an individual who wishes to pay off a mortgage that had previously been at a higher rate of interest, one should look at the particular instance before one makes a general comment.

Mr. Rae: The minister should know that virtually all the credit unions in the province are still offering open mortgages.

I would like to refer this specific example to the minister. I am quoting from a letter from the lawyer for Mr. and Mrs. Polanka: "When I asked why they renewed for five years at that rate, Mrs. Polanka informed me that she went to the Durham Street branch of the TD Bank and complained about the term, and had been informed that all mortgages have five-year terms. She was given the brush-off when she attempted to ask questions about her mortgage. She was told to sign the documents and that was all. Her husband signed the renewal agreement at home and Mrs. Polanka also signed. At that time they felt they had no alternative but to sign or to give up their home."

I would like to ask the minister to compare the behaviour of the bank in this case, if the allegations of Mr. and Mrs. Polanka are true, with the behaviour of banks when they are faced with a collapse of a major corporation like Dome. Then, the banks are only too prepared to go in and renegotiate and do whatever they can to salvage the situation. In this instance, the full cost is being borne by Mr. and Mrs. Polanka, a laid-off miner in Sudbury and his wife. How does the minister feel about that, and does he not think that these kinds of transactions are unconscionable in these circumstances?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I cannot add any more to my remark that I will have to explore the circumstances of this situation and report to the member.

LAKE ONTARIO WATER QUALITY

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, my new question is for the Premier. I am sure the Premier will have seen reports this morning that provided some information which has been known for a very long time concerning the safety of drinking water in Lake Ontario and the threats to the safety of that water as a result of the pollution at the S dump of the Hooker Chemicals company. My question to the Premier is this: Did the cabinet at any time consider the possibility of the province taking action, filing a separate action, a separate suit, against Hooker Chemicals in the United States? Did the cabinet consider that? Why, as appears to be the case, did they reject that alternative in favour of certain others?

Why has the cabinet not decided that it is the government of Ontario that has an obligation to the people of this province in defending the safety of their drinking water and taking direct action against this American chemical company?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would be going only by recollection. The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Norton) -- whom I expect will be here either later or tomorrow -- would be able to answer this in some detail.

I think it would be rather dangerous to speculate on my memory in terms of the discussions in cabinet other than to assure the honourable member it was discussed quite extensively. I think it is fair to state there is always that judgement as to the intervention of a provincial or state jurisdiction vis-à-vis the government of Canada. The position normally taken has been to seek the involvement of the federal government, and I refer both to the United States and to Canada, in terms of judicial matters of this kind.

I cannot recall whether the minister specifically recommended to cabinet -- I do not believe he did -- that Ontario should start a separate suit. That is my best recollection, but I will certainly consult with the minister, if he is not going to be here tomorrow, and answer the member in as much detail as I can.

Mr. Rae: I would have addressed this question to the minister had he been here today, but I am sure the Premier would agree that this is a question of real importance to all of those millions of Ontarians who rely upon Lake Ontario for their drinking water. It is therefore a question of basic policy for the government.

I believe it is the case that very few of the municipalities which use Lake Ontario for their drinking water are equipped with granular activated carbon or GAC filtration systems for the treatment of their water. I think it is generally agreed that these are the only systems to date that would remove the toxic chemicals that it is believed exist in Lake Ontario, from which is drawn the drinking water of literally millions of Ontarians.

With respect to that, has the cabinet considered the implications of the introduction of GAC systems right across southern Ontario with respect to Lake Ontario? Could the Premier advise us of the opinion of the government with respect to introducing GAC systems?

2:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would assure the honourable member that, unlike the odd question that is asked, I would never argue that this is not a matter of public interest or importance. That is not always the case, but in this instance I agree.

Mr. Stokes: Where does Brampton get its water?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Brampton gets its water from the Southfield water and sewage --

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Probably from the Lakeview plant, which was opened by the then Minister of Education some many years ago; an excellent facility now administered by the ministry, as I recall.

Do you want to know where the sewage goes? I will tell you that, too, if you want to interject any further questions. Do you want to know the size of the pipe, exactly what roads it goes up? I was part of the negotiations when that happened.

Mr. Speaker: Now can we return to the question, please?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I cannot answer that question in a definitive way. My recollection is that the minister has shared both his concerns and what the government is doing with respect to this issue on two or three occasions. I will either make sure that he is in the position to or I will report to the member for him tomorrow. If he is here later today, I am sure he will be delighted to share the most up-to-date information.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, without getting into specific areas of concern I have that have been going on for a good long time as to the quality of water in the Great Lakes system, I will pose a question to the Premier that is more in keeping with his responsibility.

Does the Premier feel that his minister and his government really have the kind of rapport that we should have with a neighbouring state that is obviously doing such a terrible job on water pollution? Does he feel that we have adequate communication and liaison with our New York state friends to make the Premier, the cabinet and the people here aware of what is happening and what we should be doing jointly to correct the problem?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted the member for Niagara Falls referred to them as "our New York state friends." There was the odd day here when I was not sure he would have used that terminology.

Mr. Kerrio: I have never used any other terminology.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I know the member does not. He calls them friends on the one hand, and two minutes later he is constructively very critical of them on the other.

Mr. Kerrio: The same as I am when I am talking to you people.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Don't put me in the category of being the member's friend, necessarily.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Kerrio: I didn't say that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: He did. He was pointing his finger over here and saying that is what he says to us.

The minister will have to answer this. I can only reply in the context of my communications with several of the states bordering the Great Lakes. Unfortunately, at our last meeting in June, the governor of the state of New York was not able to be present, but he was represented by someone whose official title I cannot give the member; I do not think it is comparable, say, to a deputy minister, but it was very close to that. With respect to general concern and some of the things discussed by the governors of the states who were there and by the Premier of this province, there was a real measure of unanimity on a continued program for improving the water quality in the Great Lakes.

I cannot answer whether the minister in his direct communications is satisfied with access or with the exchange of information with the state of New York. I can certainly say in a personal way that I am quite content with respect to the state of Michigan, but I have not been as directly involved with New York state. I am sure the minister will tell the member how he senses it to be. My only experience has been with this one individual, who had the same concerns and, I think, was as committed to the improvement of water quality as the governors who were there.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Premier would consider introducing legislation that would do two things: first, establish very clearly the maximum levels of contaminants allowed in our public and private water supplies; and second, give to each and every citizen of this province a right to bring an action against polluters and, indeed, against the government and the Ministry of the Environment when these levels are exceeded.

Would the government consider bringing in that kind of safe-water legislation, which would guarantee the protection of the quality of water in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I have to suggest, and I say this with respect, that surely this is not a matter the government should legislate in the sense the honourable member is suggesting. Surely the member must understand that this government is committed to safe water and to the improvement of water quality generally. I will not wax too enthusiastic, but if the member traces, as I think he would be able to do with some assistance from his research people, the government commitment both in policy and money, there is no state of the union on a per capita basis, no province of Canada that has spent more, done more or established higher standards and has accomplished as much as has Ontario.

I happened to be present in the nation's capital in 1974 or 1975 when the water quality agreement was signed between the governments of Canada and the United States. It was initiated, incidentally, by Ontario. If the member will trace back he will find that our provincial contribution has met the terms of that agreement. Probably we are the only non-signator to the agreement but none the less involved in it, that has met that commitment.

While I share the concern of the member with respect to the safety of our water supply, I cannot think of any jurisdiction that has made as much progress in water quality or water safety.

GUELPH CORRECTIONAL CENTRE

Hon. Mr. Leluk: Mr. Speaker, I would like to report to the Legislature on two questions raised by the member for Wellington South (Mr. Worton) last Thursday with regard to my ministry.

The first question relates to the recent report of a public institutions inspection panel on the Guelph Correctional Centre. I would point out that although the member referred in his question to a 15-page report to county court judge Edward McNeeley, the section of the report dealing with the correctional centre only comprised about one page.

The member mentioned that some of the panel members were shocked by the layout of the cells in this institution. I would assure the members the layout is similar to that of most correctional institutional cells in the province.

It may well be that some members of the panel are shocked by the stark and spartan realities of incarceration. However, I must point out that these institutions are not hotels. They are there to protect society from persons whose criminal activities have been sufficiently severe, in the opinion of the courts, to warrant their being removed from society.

The panel also made a number of recommendations about minor maintenance items as well as some helpful recommendations about improvements to the facility. For example, the panel recommended the shower areas be renovated. I am pleased to report this work is now under way. There were also a number of comments about the kitchen area where some major renovations have been made in the past year. At the time of the panel's visit to this area additional construction was under way.

It should also be noted the panel made some very positive comments about the recreational facilities at this institution.

I have personally visited the Guelph correctional centre a number of times since becoming minister. I have always found it to be a well-run institution served by hard-working and dedicated staff. I would invite the member for Wellington South to visit this institution at his earliest convenience. I am certain he will be satisfied with what he sees.

With regard to the other question raised by the member concerning the former inmate, Robert Meekinson, I would like to report that on September 20, 1982, a notice of claim was served on officers of the crown law office, civil, by the solicitor for Mr. Meekinson.

Mr. Meekinson alleges he was unnecessarily detained by the Ministry of Correctional Services. However, this contention is being disputed by my ministry. At issue here is a dispute concerning a highly-complex sentence calculation involving multiple terms of incarceration imposed over a period of years, and complicated by escapes from custody, parole violation, legislative amendments and various court decisions on sentence calculation.

As this is a highly complex issue, and as the matter is pending before the courts, I do not propose to comment further on it. I hope this clarifies the situation for the member.

Mr. Worton: Mr. Speaker, I want to make the point clear that I do visit many friends in the institution at least once a year, both at the detention centre and the Guelph correctional centre.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Former Tories.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Worton: The one issue that concerns me about this gentleman was his absence from the institution for such a long time. As I mentioned to the minister he was a guest of one of the former cabinet ministers. The minister was concerned, as I was, as to whether the tailor had received remuneration for the black tie and outfit that was rented to attend this function. Can the minister comment on that?

Interjections.

Mr. Ruston: Who absconded with the silk tie?

Mr. Speaker: New question.

2:40 p.m.

BUSINESS-ORIENTED NEW DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

Mr. McEwen: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health dealing with the business-oriented new development program, BOND. Will the minister give the House his views on the comments attributed to the executive director of Kingston General Hospital to the effect that BOND had, in the short term, hurt Kingston General Hospital; and that candlelight dinners, the taking in of outside laundry, and other money-making schemes had failed to raise sufficient money for this institution?

Will the minister agree that the program is clearly not generating sufficient money for Hôtel Dieu Hospital since that hospital is anticipating a year-end deficit of $1.1 billion? Will he acknowledge that even if hospitals make money from outside operations, his ministry would force them to put this money to operating deficits rather than to capital projects?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to hear that their candlelight dinners do not raise much money. I can only tell the hospital that my candlelight dinners raise a great deal of money. I would be pleased to help them out if they would like. As a matter of fact, all of us raise a lot of money with candlelight dinners.

Mr. Martel: So we have heard. It is your clientele, your clientele is different.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I should tell the member, as I should remind the hospital, as we have a dozen times or so already, that the BOND program is money over and above our operating transfer. The net ministry liability which we transfer to each of the hospitals every year is meant to cover their operating expenses fully, because we believe that each of the hospitals can live within that transfer. Further, as the member will know, the transfer that we made about a month ago of $110 million has now put the hospital system in a position where even Hôtel Dieu in Kingston should be able to end the year in a break-even situation.

If that is not the case, then the hospital should be in to see us and, with respect, should not be making allegations that the BOND program really is directly related to their overall financial health. It is not. They know very well that their ability to operate a break-even situation is tied to our regular transfers to the hospital. It is not tied to the BOND program, save and except to the extent which they can use the BOND program to accumulate additional moneys to undertake other programs -- to buy new equipment, whatever -- which they otherwise could not do. It should not have anything whatever to do with the deficit.

Mr. McEwan: I thank the minister for his answer. Will the minister comment on the report that Kingston General Hospital will be applying for a liquor licence, to obtain operating funds, through the help of my colleague the member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Norton)? Will he explain why the health care system in this province has been permitted to deteriorate so far that the hospitals are now having to resort to serving alcoholic beverages in order to make ends meet? It is truly an appalling situation, particularly in view of the high number of people in this province who die each year as a result of alcohol consumption.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I might say that most members of this House would accept the proposition, as indeed the Ontario Hospital Association has accepted the proposition, that the situation in Ontario is not even close to having a deterioration of the health care system, particularly of the hospital sector.

I do not know who prepared that question for the member for Frontenac-Addington -- whether some of his constituents worked with him; whether, heaven forbid, his researchers did or the Kingston hospitals did --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- but I think he could put a proposition that the serving of alcoholic beverages should or should not be allowed in hospitals, that is a separate proposition.

I would not want the member's question to suggest in any way whatsoever, in all fairness, that the BOND program or alcohol or candlelight dinners are related to keeping hospitals from deteriorating. With respect, that is a fairly silly proposition.

To clarify the situation, the member himself knows that hospitals -- or anyone else -- do not need to go through my colleagues or any of his colleagues, but sometimes people do make inquiries through him or his colleagues. To my knowledge, the hospitals in Kingston have not done that through my colleagues or through me, nor is it necessary at all. He knows that and I know that, and he really should not cast those aspersions.

Finally, might I repeat my earlier reply: if the hospital decides to do that, it has nothing whatever to do in any way with its ability to make ends meet. As I recall, the Kingston General has received more than $2 million in addition to the 11.3 per cent increase we gave all hospitals at the start of the year. If, based on all those transfers, the KGH thinks it has to enter into any of these BOND things just to break even, then I suggest there are far more serious problems than even the member anticipates. By the way, I do not think that is the case.

Mr. Boudria: We give up.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I knew you would.

SAFETY OF OFFICE EQUIPMENT

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. By now, I presume the minister has had a chance to read the draft report on the possible hazards of video display units I talked to him about last week.

Can I have his comments on the section on page 6 which states, "There is sufficient uncertainty at the present time to justify a full-scale epidemiological study, and until such time as this uncertainty over the possible effects of the use of VDUs on reproduction is resolved, precautionary measures should be taken." The right to refuse work is one of those that is listed.

Will he comment on it in the context of the decision last January by an arbitration board to uphold the right of Helen Barss to refuse. It said, "However, the board found that Barss' fear of harm to her unborn child was serious, whether or not it had a scientifically recognized basis." Does the minister not think it is wise to take this kind of approach to this problem rather than saying there are no problems and letting women go through this problem of a real lack of peace of mind during their pregnancies?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe I ever said I felt there was no problem. What I did say was, if there is any doubt at all the matter should be explored to its fullest.

In respect to the draft report the member has referred to, perhaps I should explain. This is not a draft report to me. It is a draft report to the Advisory Council on Occupational Health and Occupational Safety. It will be up to that council to decide whether it will pass that report on to me as it is or whether it will go back to the task force and ask for further information, submissions and discussions. At the moment I have not had that report sent to me from the Advisory Council on Occupational Health and Occupational Safety.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: If I might, I would suggest the minister ask for it. There is nothing to preclude him from having it. If not, I will send him a copy of what I have.

I am a little disappointed with the answer to that question. Is it not the case women are going before the Ontario Labour Relations Board, such as Terry Burroughs from Petrosar, who was dismissed because she refused to stay at a VDT when she was pregnant? Is it not the case that when they go to those hearings, they are often faced with Ministry of Labour officials giving evidence?

I have here two letters, one dated in July of this year and one dated in April of this year from a senior ministry official in which he says the following, "Based on what is known about radiation emissions from VDTs, it is my opinion that testing for such emissions is quite unnecessary." Then he goes on to say, "In the absence of any abnormal conditions at the work station, there are no valid scientific or technical reasons for an operator to refuse to carry out the work for which he or she was hired."

Surely that is prejudicing the case of the women going before these tribunals. Does the minister not think he should say it is time to err on the side of caution rather than being as absolutist as they are being at this time in terms of his high ministry officials?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: As I have said on several other occasions when the honourable member has brought this matter forward, I am waiting for the report from the Advisory Council on Occupational Health and Occupational Safety. I have not received that report and I do not believe that I should be taking any action on my own until I have received the advice of the council that was set up to study this matter.

2:50 p.m.

LIMOUSINE FARES

Mr. Piché: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transportation and Communications, who was here a few moments ago.

The minister may be aware that a rate increase for airport transportation, such as limousine service, went into effect on December 2. This represents an 18.5 per cent increase and seems unfair, unjust and intolerable in today's climate of restraint.

Upon further investigation it was found that even some limousine companies disapprove of the rate increase as it will reduce their competitiveness and impair their ability to solicit airport fares.

Mr. Boudria: It is a federal matter, and you know it.

Mr. Piché: I am coming to that. If our government is going to impose restraint programs on the public service and on the citizens of this province, does the minister not feel that we are obligated to encourage and even request restraint in other sectors of the economy? Therefore, will the minister undertake to use his good offices to influence, in no uncertain way, the ruling of the federal Department of Transport and the federal Minister of Transport, Jean-Luc Pepin, on this most important issue?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of this substantial increase in limousine fares to the airport. This is not an area that comes under our jurisdiction, but certainly I will contact the federal ministry and let them know of our concerns.

Mr. Piché: In view of this, will the minister also place some urgency on establishing a service that the north has been looking at for some time, such as the Dash-7 service directly between northern points and Toronto Island airport?

Mr. Speaker: That is a great question, but hardly supplementary to the minister's answer.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member for Cochrane-North is concerned that as a result of the next election he will fall into the category of the unemployed --

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a supplementary either.

ROYAL CANADIAN HENLEY REGATTA

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Tourism and Recreation which has particular interest in the Niagara Peninsula, but certainly he as the minister would be interested for all of Ontario.

As the minister is aware, because we have had a chance to discuss this, the people of St. Catharines and the rowing fraternity and sorority in Ontario were very shocked and dismayed to hear that the Canadian Amateur Rowing Association had made a decision to transfer, on a temporary basis, and perhaps on a permanent basis, the site of the Royal Canadian Henley Regatta from St. Catharines to the city of Montreal. This is after some 80 years in the city of St. Catharines.

In view of the fact that this announcement has been made and as the member for Brock (Mr. Welch) points out, at least half of the Henley course is in the riding of Brock with the other half, lanes one, two and three, in St. Catharines, would the minister indicate to the House whether he is prepared to make representations to the Canadian Amateur Rowing Association? Would he use his good offices to persuade them to retain the Henley course in St. Catharines as the site of the Royal Canadian Henley Regatta, to maintain this tradition, this history, and the competence that has surrounded it as he would know from his visits?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say first of all that I share the disappointment of the honourable member opposite on the possible move of the Henley to Montreal on an every-second-year basis. I know this is a disappointment that also has been shared by my colleague the member for Brock. I know it has been very disappointing news to many people in the St. Catharines and Niagara area because, as the member opposite has pointed out, a long, rich and glorious history has developed over 80 years of Henleys in St. Catharines. I also understand there is good deal of dissension and disappointment even among the executive members of the Canadian Amateur Rowing Association.

While there is concern about this possible move to the Olympic site in Montreal, it is not something that has not been under consideration for some time. As the member opposite probably knows, even in the last 10-year contract there was the possibility of exercising an option to have the Henley held in alternate years in Montreal, although it was not taken up. But certainly it looks now that the Henley will go to Montreal for next year at least. They have a very excellent site, there is no doubt about that. Obviously we do not think it is as good as St. Catharines, but it is a very good site. It is of Olympic standard, it is very much underutilized and there was a good deal of local interest in Montreal as well as some financial incentive.

In response to his question, I assure the member that I will do what I can, and I am sure this government will do what it can, to encourage the rowing community nationally and the Henley community in St. Catharines to be sure that the Henley does not go away permanently; and I will be very surprised if that is going to happen. Perhaps we will even try to get it back and continue the rich tradition that has been established there.

Mr. Bradley: I want to thank the minister for his level of concern and knowledge of this matter. But, in view of the fact that the city of Montreal apparently offered some $8,000 to $10,000 of up-front money, and apparently that was one of the factors militating in favour of the transfer of the site, is the minister prepared at least to give consideration to having his ministry provide a grant to either the Canadian Henley Rowing Corp. or the city of St. Catharines that would assist in the operation of this regatta and would ensure the continued flow of tourism dollars into an area that has an unemployment rate of 19.1 per cent?

I should point out that his ministry in the past has provided a considerable amount of money at that site in St. Catharines, but I am talking of an operating circumstance which might ensure that at least we are on an equitable basis with Montreal in bidding for the retention of that site.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I can assure the member opposite that we will not allow this thing to go by default. We will certainly talk with the Canadian Amateur Rowing Association, and we will be talking to the St. Catharines community. We will see whether we might be able to provide an adequate incentive to meet whatever financial incentive may be required.

I understand that the offer of finances from the city of Montreal is still somewhat tentative; we will have to wait and see. Certainly it will not go by default, and we will do what we can and must do to make sure that this tradition is continued.

ARGOSY FINANCIAL GROUP

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Attorney General and relates to the Argosy Financial collapse. I am aware of the criminal charges that were reported as having been laid early in November. My specific question is, what did the report of the police investigation into the Argosy Financial collapse have to say about the responsibility, negligence or complicity of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations and the Ontario Securities Commission?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any statement related to the honourable member's question. I have not read all the police investigation reports, as the member can appreciate. I do know the police investigation was very lengthy and very comprehensive, but I had not attempted to peruse the police reports in this matter and I had not intended to do so. I must admit I have nothing to add to that.

3 p.m.

Mr. Renwick: I am aware that it was a long, ongoing investigation. I am also aware that the Attorney General advised me that he would let me know the results of it when it was finally completed.

Will he read the report and advise this House what the report had to say specifically about the continued licensing of Argosy Investments Ltd. as mortgage broker by the ministry, the continued registration of Argosy Financial Group of Canada Ltd. as a security issuer by the Ontario Securities Commission, the continued licensing of London Loan Co. as a loan corporation by the ministry, the failure of the Ontario Securities Commission to investigate the sale of investment contracts by Argosy Finance Co., an unregistered issuer, and the approval by the Ontario Securities Commission of the prospectus of Argosy Financial Group of Canada Ltd. for the issue of $3 million of unsecured debentures in October 1979?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I will review the police report. What response I am permitted to make, considering this matter is before the courts, will depend of course on the contents of these reports. As regards any allegations about lack of competence on the part of the Ontario Securities Commission or the ministry, I will have to refrain from making any comment until I know just what is in the police report; but I will read the report and respond further.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, as the minister will be aware, the Ombudsman's office has been attempting to investigate this matter along somewhat the same lines. Can the minister assure the House that he will intervene with officials of his ministry to ensure that those documents and files which the Ombudsman would like to have for his investigation will be provided to him forthwith?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, as the member for St. Catharines well appreciates, obviously we have to be concerned with maintaining the integrity of the prosecution. If my officials are of the view that letting any of these documents outside of their possession could in some way hinder or undermine the prosecution, this would be of paramount concern to me. All I can say is that it is something I will review with my officials.

PAROLE BOARD DECISIONS

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Correctional Services on behalf of one who did not receive the black-tie treatment. A constituent recently visited my office on behalf of a relative who had been an inmate of one of the minister's institutions some months back. He expressed dissatisfaction with a decision of the Ontario Parole Board.

On receiving further information as to his appearance before the board and on reviewing the Ministry of Correctional Services Act, I find that the parole board was not properly constituted when it rendered his parole-denied decision. His application was heard by two members. The act clearly states that three members of the board are required to constitute a quorum.

My question is, how long has the board been rendering decisions without a proper quorum? Is it still doing so? And how does the minister view the legality of those decisions already rendered?

Hon. Mr. Leluk: Mr. Speaker, I missed the first part of the question. I did not get the name of the inmate the honourable member referred to.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think a name was used.

Hon. Mr. Leluk: Can I just have the question repeated, please? I am sorry.

Mr. Eakins: The question is this: A constituent of mine was --

Mr. Speaker: Instead of the preamble, will you just phrase the question itself, please?

Mr. Eakins: The minister's parole board has been meeting for some time without a proper quorum. Some of the people appearing before the parole board were interviewed by only two members. The act clearly states that three members of the board constitute a quorum. My question is, how long has this been going on and what is the legality of the decisions already rendered by the board?

Hon. Mr. Leluk: I will have to look into that matter, because I do not know whether the member is referring to one specific instance or more than one. If he can give me some specifics with respect to the sittings of the parole board and these cases, I will look into the matter and get back to him.

Mr. Eakins: I am simply asking the minister to tell this House why the board has been meeting without a quorum, and I would like him to report to the House how long this has been going on. Is it still going on? How many members who appealed before the board had decisions rendered when it was not properly constituted? This has been going on for some months -- since last winter or last spring. I want to know whether it is still going on, because those decisions would be void.

Hon. Mr. Leluk: I will have to look into that and get back to the member.

WAGE AND PRICE RESTRAINT PROGRAM

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I have here a 400-gram package of --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. Obviously they are looking forward to this question with great anticipation.

Mr. Swart: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the members across the way seem to think the price of food is a big joke. In these times, to many people in this province, it is not.

This 400-gram package of no-name wheat puffs, which is traditionally one of the cheapest ready-to-eat cereals, was sold in Loblaws last April for $1.09, the regular price. The regular price now is $1.49.

I ask the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations whether he thinks a 37 per cent increase in this product is reasonable. Will he tell us why it has increased by that much in just eight months?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, can I wait until the package arrives? Is the honourable member sending it over or not?

Mr. Swart: No.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: My children like that. Is he going to deprive five children of the opportunity of eating that in my home?

I think there is not a person in this House who must not wonder how much the member for Welland-Thorold has searched the world over for an example of this. There just has been a month, from October to November, when food prices in this province dropped by an average of 1.3 per cent on 72 items we regularly test. Food and cereals dropped by 2.2 per cent.

The member never seems to want to get up and say those things. In other days it used to be better because he would send the parcel over, but today he is so mean he keeps it to himself. It is bad enough that he fails to tell the House and the public about the reduction in food prices from one month to another, particularly about a reduction on average in cereals, but to keep that to himself is unforgiveable.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I --

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

PETITION

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT BILL

Mr. McEwen: Mr. Speaker, I have a late petition from the constituents of the great riding of Frontenac-Addington, to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor, requesting the withdrawal of Bill 127.

3:10 p.m.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

GLANWORTH INVESTMENTS LIMITED ACT

Mr. Cousens moved, seconded by Mr. Hodgson, first reading of Bill Pr48, An Act to revive Glanworth Investments Ltd.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FOOD (CONTINUED)

The Deputy Chairman: We are continuing discussion on the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. I am looking for someone who wishes to continue the discussions thereon.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, at least three quarters, perhaps four fifths, of what I wanted to say in my leadoff remarks on the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food --

Interjections.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. The member for Welland-Thorold is very kind, but the other members are not giving attention to his remarks. There is too much background discussion.

Mr. Swart: I was saying, Mr. Chairman, that there is still one area I want to cover in my leadoff remarks. It is a matter that I believe comes under the authority of the Minister and Ministry of Agriculture and Food, and that is land use and the preservation of our prime agricultural land in this province.

I want to say to the minister quite bluntly and quite firmly that his government over the years has done little to preserve this province's agricultural land resource. After having read his comments, not only in his introductory remarks here on the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food but also in the speech he made at the Canadian National Exhibition, I believe at its opening, I say quite frankly that I do not have a great deal of hope that he is going to take any more positive action to preserve our prime land than his predecessors or his government have done in the 40 or so years they have been in power.

He starts off, both in his leadoff and in the comments made at the CNE, by indicating that he is giving high priority to this subject. I quote from his comments at the CNE on September 1:

"Another priority in the reorganized ministry is the ongoing effort to keep our agricultural land base intact. In this province we have half the productive farm land in Canada but, because our best acreage is close to our larger cities, we often face difficult land use choices." Further down on the same page, page 5 of that speech at the CNE, he states, "While the total land area enclosed by farms in Ontario fell by seven per cent between 1971 and 1981, that figure includes woodlots and other lands not under cultivation." Then he goes on to say, "Our total crop land, the acreage actually planted with crops, increased by 14 per cent over the decade to a post-war high of nearly nine million acres last year."

In the introductory remarks of his 84-page speech -- which, incidentally, is turning out to be not any longer than the one I am making at the present time -- the minister makes these comments: "One of the fundamental duties of my ministry is to protect that land base, not only to see that it remains as farm land wherever possible and feasible but is used in the best and the most productive ways."

From there to page 47 the minister goes on talking under the heading of "land preservation." The final comments on page 47 are: "We have no more valuable resource in this province than the productive land base which is the foundation of this $10-billion industry. We are determined to conserve and to enhance our land resources."

In both these comments the minister does not mention two of perhaps the most important things. One, he does not mention any plans to prevent urban sprawl or to prevent urban expansion on to our best land; nor does he make any comments about the policy of another ministry of his government with regard to aggregate extraction which is slated to destroy perhaps another 250,000 acres of land.

The minister's comments are quite meaningless. He and I both know that there are about 11 million acres of productive farm land in this province. All the minister is saying in these two statements is that the amount of it under cultivation has increased. That is a far different issue from preserving our land base.

I wonder why in his comments the minister did not mention what this government has done -- or, more appropriately, what it has not done -- and what it plans to do to preserve the agricultural base of 11 million acres and to expand it in the north. All of us here have no objection to expanding agricultural production in the north, although we know that land in most areas is not nearly as productive as is the class 1 land in southern Ontario, primarily because of climate. But the minister makes no comments whatsoever about preventing urban sprawl on to our best agricultural land here in the southern part of the province. As I said before, his government has done absolutely nothing about that.

The minister and other members of this House will know that since its founding I have been an active member of PALS, the Preservation of Agricultural Land Society. I am sure the minister will know, from nothing other than the discussion that took place in the House that the government of this province did not involve itself in defending those prime farm lands in the Niagara region, but in fact I have a quote from an Ontario Municipal Board decision made in February 1981:

"In opposing these requests for additions to the urban areas, it appears to us that PALS was acting in good faith and attempting to carry out what it perceived to be a necessary role as a supporter of the cabinet's decision in 1977 and protector of the public interest in respect of the preservation of the tender fruit lands. Since there was no other volunteer to undertake the task, the presence of opposition from PALS, the agricultural association and some members of the public resulted in a thorough testing of the evidence on both sides."

What the cabinet did back in 1977, as the minister must know, was to make a decision saying, "These should be the new boundaries," and the whole thing was referred to the Ontario Municipal Board. These were boundaries restricted from what the regional municipality of Niagara wanted, but when it came to the Ontario Municipal Board this government did not defend it there. This government was absent from those hearings and left it up to a volunteer organization, PALS, a number of farmers in that area and a number of farm organizations, including the federations of agriculture, to put the side in opposition to the municipalities. He should know too that municipalities and the developers spent something like $2 million on the one side and $150,000 was spent on the other.

3:20 p.m.

Those who were promoting the wide spread of urban boundaries on tender fruit lands had something like 68 lawyers present at those hearings, not all of them all the time of course. On the other side, PALS had one lawyer there during all of those hearings. That is hardly a fair hearing. Yet this ministry did not see fit to intervene to support a recommendation that had been made by the cabinet for the preservation of those agricultural lands.

I want to contrast this with what happened in Durham with regard to aggregate extraction. I suspect the minister knows there was a hearing there in the fall of 1979. During the course of those hearings a letter was sent from the Ministry of Natural Resources to the Ontario Municipal Board which set out government policy with regard to designating aggregate within that region. I am not going to take the time to read this document now, but it was sent out under the signature of Mr. James Auld, who was the Minister of Natural Resources at that time. The letter stated they must include the aggregate within their official plan.

On the one hand we have the Ministry of Natural Resources giving that kind of priority to aggregate extraction, which the municipality did not want or at least not to the extent that had to be included, and on the other hand we find the Ministry of Agriculture and Food would take no part in the hearings to preserve the most valuable agricultural land in this whole province and in this whole nation.

Where was the Ministry of Agriculture and Food when 12,000 acres of class 1 land in Mississauga was approved in stages for development, the hole in the doughnut with which I am sure the minister is familiar? Where is he going to be when Niagara-on-the-Lake submits an application, part of which I believe is already submitted, wanting more land in the Niagara region within the urban boundaries? Ultimately they will probably ask for some 400 or 500 acres to be included there. I believe they have already asked for about 100 acres of that land to be put in.

Where is the minister going to be in the Brampton case, where 6,000 acres of prime agricultural land is in dispute? I think I know its history and, from what the minister has said in his document, I think I know where he will be: he will not be there to defend the agricultural land.

There are two sets of documents. They are the only policy statements of the Ontario government that are out at present with regard to development. One is the Foodland Guidelines and the other is the statement of policy on aggregate resource. It would be impossible to see two documents that contrast more sharply than these.

I have statements here, and perhaps I should read them at this time, by the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) in the Globe and Mail dated September 23, 1982, in which he was taken to task in this article by Mr. Bryan Johnson, who is a feature writer for the Globe and Mail, for giving priority to aggregate extraction over all other matters.

The Minister of Natural Resources is quoted as saying: "We don't take any position one way or the other on what the municipalities do about it. We just ask that they look at it ... to see where the potential exists." Then, because he did not like that article, he wrote a letter to the editor of the Globe and Mail, which appeared on October 22, 1982, under the heading "Safeguards Planned on Quarries, Minister Says." I want to quote two short paragraphs from his statement there:

"Largely overlooked in the controversy over aggregate -- sand, gravel, crushed stone and shale -- is the fact that municipalities have the final say on what new pits and quarries are established and where.

"The Ministry of Natural Resources will not issue a licence for an aggregate extraction operation that does not meet all the requirements of official plans and zoning bylaws. These official plans and zoning bylaws are enacted at the local political level, where citizens have perhaps the greatest opportunity for input on the decision-making process."

I want to say to the minister, and I hope he replies to this when he gets up, that statement by the Minister of Natural Resources simply is not true when he says municipalities have the final say on what new pits and quarries are established and where.

Let me read to the minister some of the provisions of this mineral aggregate policy for official plans which was signed by Mr. Auld and submitted in a letter dated September 11, 1979; and which is still in force. Mr. Auld stated in this letter to the Ontario Municipal Board at the hearings:

"The attached mineral aggregate policy for official plans represents the basic policy of my ministry with regard to mineral aggregates. This policy reflects the contents of a cabinet submission I made on March 15, 1978, that was approved by cabinet on that date."

Let me read two or three of these 10 policy statements with regard to the priority for aggregate resource:

"The province, in co-operation with the municipalities, must identify areas of high aggregate resource potential and define these areas required for possible future extraction adequate to meet future provincial needs.

"The identification, designation and protection of high aggregate resource potential areas should occur jointly by regional, county and local official plans.

"The Ministry of Natural Resources should have ultimate authority to ensure adequate supplies of aggregate for available future use, and official plans should not be approved until they ensure that municipalities will have available their fair share of future aggregate supplies."

Granted, within the ministry's Foodland Guidelines there are a great many statements, but compare that to the basic statement on page 9 which says: "The overall land base of the municipality must be evaluated in terms of competing land uses to determine allocations to accommodate needs. This analysis provides a rationale for subsequent land use designations in the official plan."

Surely the minister knows that official plans, parts of them where there is controversy, always end up at the Ontario Municipal Board. He knows equally well that the OMB is not a policy-making body, it makes its decisions based on the policies of the Ontario government and of the local municipality, where the local municipality's policies do not conflict with those of the Ontario government.

On the one hand we have the guidelines of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food which, first of all, are only guidelines. Second, they do not require prime agricultural land to be given the highest priority. Then we have the statement of policy by the Ministry of Natural Resources, which requires it.

There is no question that when this goes to the OMB to determine whether land is going to be designated for agricultural use or for aggregate use, aggregate will win out. Sure, they may permit agriculture to continue until it is needed, but the minister must also know that once it is designated through official plans and zoning bylaws, if anybody wants to use that, even if a municipality says no it will not change the zoning, they can themselves make direct application for a change in the zoning bylaws.

3:30 p.m.

In other words, the situation is that official plans must show the aggregate within that municipality. They must show that. Once it is shown in the official plans, the zoning bylaws can be changed either by the municipal council or by the application of an owner. When an aggregate policy like this one comes before the Ontario Municipal Board, the aggregate producers win out.

The minister may tell this House the land can be rehabilitated for agricultural purposes and it is only a temporary use to take out the aggregate. That is simply not the case. Considering the required drainage and the removing and replacing of topsoil, there is no indication today that prime agricultural land can be fully rehabilitated or even rehabilitated enough so that most of it can be used for farming land in the future.

When the minister and the government say that aggregate is not going to be given priority or that urban uses will not be given priority, the people just do not believe it any more. There was an editorial in the Globe and Mail on Thursday, September 30. I will quote only part of it. It is headed, "The Farms That Sit on Gravel."

It reads as follows: "If blanket assurances were all that counted, Niagara's dwindling fruit land would be safe today from the shovels of the aggregate gravel industry. No Niagara farmer, Ontario Natural Resources Minister Alan Pope promised the other day, will be forced to use his land for gravel. Unfortunately for Ontario farmers, however, that pledge is not quite as ironclad as it seems. The minister's promise must be judged against numerous indications that the government is planning to open farm land to future gravel extraction. True, no one would be forced to do so. They would simply be permitted to sell their land to the high-paying aggregate industry.

"Queen's Park is particularly sensitive to the aggregate producers' wishes since the government itself is the industry's prime customer. Half the aggregate produced in the province is used on government projects. All things considered, as one industry spokesman admitted, it has become very possible that new gravel pits will be opened on Niagara's prime tender fruit land."

It concludes by saying: "The only way to ensure the future of Niagara's fruit land is to give it absolute land use priority, whatever the demands of urban planners, payers and diggers of gravel pits."

If the newspapers, the media, do not believe the government on this, neither do the farmers. In Farm and Country, dated October 26, 1982, there is a heading, "Gravel Plans Spark Concern." It mentions the action taken by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. "Realizing the concern among many farmers, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture passed a resolution at its recent directors' meeting in Toronto demanding the province's Foodland Guidelines take precedence over the Natural Resources land use strategies on agricultural land."

I am asking the minister if it is his intention to carry out that request of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. Does he, as minister, believe the prime and unique agricultural land of this province should have the highest priority for land use? It is a simple question and I hope to have an answer from him on this issue when he rises.

That completes my lead-in remarks, and I just want to conclude by saying I believe that the four issues I have dealt with are the real, crucial issues in the agricultural community at this time, and for that matter are crucial to all the people of this province. The fact that farmers are in a crisis is a condemnation of the federal Department of Agriculture, the federal government, the provincial Ministry of Agriculture and Food and the provincial government, and there have to be major revisions in the policies of both along the lines I have suggested to this House.

The Deputy Chairman: Should we invite the Minister of Agriculture and Food to respond to the opening comments, or should we proceed on each of the votes?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I would be happy to respond now, Mr. Chairman. I just wonder, since there are two agriculture critics for the Liberal Party, whether the member for Grey (Mr. McKessock) is going to make some remarks.

Mr. Riddell: No.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I would be happy to respond to a few of the items raised over the course of the two or three days that we have sat a few hours at a time to begin these estimates. I do not expect that I will be able to answer in these responses every item raised, but once we get into votes and items there will be an opportunity to come back to some of the things that perhaps require a little more time and a little more detailed information, which the staff, when they join me on the floor, can assist with.

It is that type of exchange that, as I mentioned at the outset, I would have hoped we could have had in committee. I think the members opposite recognize that for the purposes of actually discussing such matters as these it is in fact a better forum, but unfortunately that was not possible this year because of the heavy schedule of the House and its committees.

First of all, the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) began his response a week ago by inquiring about whether or not I had written to all of the graduates of our five colleges of agricultural technology and of Guelph. I think he said he had been at some function in recent months at which he sat next to a recent graduate of Centralia who said he had had a nice letter from me.

I want to assure the honourable member that while it is probably a good idea, and I thank him for suggesting it, I have not been writing to all of the graduates. I have made it a policy to sign all the graduation certificates. There is a spot on the certificate for the minister's signature. In the past there have been occasions when a stamp has been used, but I think the occasion is an important one in the life of every one of those young men and women, some of them not as young as others among the graduates I have met, so I do sign all of their graduation certificates.

I also send letters to students who have distinguished themselves in one way or another by subject or by overall achievement in a given year or course, so It could well be that the young man next to whom the member sat at this function, whatever it was, was referring either to the certificate he had received, which I did sign, or to a letter I might have sent to congratulate him on distinguishing himself among his peers.

As I say, it is not a bad idea if the member thinks it is something we should pursue; but of course it would be very expensive, and I really would not want to consider it.

Next the member touched on the number of farmers who are leaving farming in a given year. I think he was trying to make the point that while the statistics that are released monthly on bankruptcies in each sector of the economy would indicate that to date -- let me be sure of my figures -- we have had about 145 farmers declare bankruptcy, the member was suggesting that this is just the tip of the iceberg, that there are many more than this number who leave agriculture; and to be sure, a lot of farms do change hands in any given year.

3:40 p.m.

I am told, in fact, that judging by a survey that was made -- and I am not sure by whom -- of land transfers in 1979 and 1980, it is apparently anticipated that in any given year about six per cent of the farms in the province will change hands, and all but a very few would in fact stay in agricultural production as they changed.

Apparently in 1980 a little more than 5,000 farms changed hands, and in 1981 just slightly fewer than 5,000 -- which, of course, is many more than the numbers who declared bankruptcy in either of those years: in 1980, 122 farmers out of 85,800 in the province, and in 1981, 140 out of 82,448. That is a significant difference from one year to the next, and a lot of that would be due to consolidations: one farmer buying up another as somebody retires or for whatever reason.

I am not quite sure whether the member was trying to say that most of the transfers in recent years have been due to the economy. I do not know that I could accept that, of course, what with the numbers one would obviously expect to retire for reasons of age or health or both, or people who because of changing family circumstances decide to change their lifestyle.

There is no question that, like most sectors if not every sector of the economy today, especially those that involve small businessmen -- and farmers are self-employed small businessmen and I try to treat them as such -- some do find they are unable to carry on for whatever reason and do wind up their businesses. But they are by no means the roughly six per cent, or 4,500 to 5,000 transactions a year, that involve farms changing hands.

The member went on, and I think I have read press accounts of him saying this before, to say that our spending this year is actually $14 million less than last year. I want to remind the member and correct him. In 1981-82, the published estimates for the ministry at the beginning of the fiscal year were roughly $217 million. The published estimates for the Minister of Agriculture and Food for the year 1982-83 are $283.9 or, if I can round off, $284 million, which is an increase, base budget to base budget, of $67 million, not a decrease.

In 1981-82, there were some add-ons as the year went on, the most significant being for emergency beef assistance payments of approximately $57 million, and the actual payout for farm tax rebates in 1981-82 was about $19 million greater than had originally been estimated. Of course, it is not unusual that in any given year money is added to the estimates, depending on the exigencies of the day. The base budget for this year, rather than being less than last year, is considerably more. The $67-million increase on last year's base of $217 million works out to better than a 30 per cent increase, base budget to base budget.

We anticipate the amount that is budgeted this year for farm tax rebates will again fall short of our requirements and so we will have to have additional money to complete those payments. The full amount of the farm assistance program is not budgeted this year. As I have explained on a number of occasions, there was a small amount budgeted in fiscal 1981-82 and the balance spread over 1982-83 and 1983-84, inasmuch as commitments assumed under that program up to December 31, 1982, will run to December 31, 1983.

Even there the estimates will be light in reflecting the amount of money actually spent. I am not even including the $58 million that has been budgeted by the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development for agriculture over five years beginning in 1981. So on average we can throw in another $12 million per year for Agriculture and Food.

It is not a decrease: it is an increase. This is not to say we can always expect to have 30 per cent increases every year. Obviously that is not possible in this day and age when revenues are declining relative to budgeted expectations and when the costs of maintaining the human and social services are so high and continue to grow.

I know a little bit whereof I speak there. As the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch) reminded us last Friday in the House, almost two thirds of the provincial budget is spent for education, health and social services. The most expensive of these commitments did not exist 20 years ago, in some cases even 10 years ago.

Members talk about the percentage of the budget being devoted to agriculture, and I have heard some compare it to 10, 15, 20 years ago. They are comparing quite different worlds. The breadth and the depth of human social services funded by the provincial government is totally different today from what is was 10 or 20 years ago.

I remember one time talking with the former member for Haldimand-Norfolk, the Honourable James Allan, who was musing about his days as Minister of Highways in the Frost government, when he spent 35 per cent of the provincial budget. It is hard to imagine now that 35 per cent of the budget of this province, at any time, was spent on highways. I will not say the priorities have changed because highways are still a priority, agriculture is still a priority, but some new ones have been added that are very expensive.

It is all well and good when anybody talks about increasing the percentage of the provincial budget; it always strikes a very responsive chord. We would all like to see a greater proportion of the provincial budget spent on agriculture. I ask the member, whenever possible, here or in the third person, to be specific. I am all for fighting to get new programs initiated for my ministry and the people whom we serve and with whom we work, but not just for the sake of spending more of the taxpayers' money, let us be specific.

3:50 p.m.

I will talk about some of the things we have done in the brief time I have been Minister of Agriculture and Food to inaugurate new programs and new services. These new programs and new services are not to make the farmers more bound to government. I worry sometimes that some of the proposals made from time to time in the guise of being in aid of farmers and of agriculture will in the long run only make them more bound to government, more subservient to government and more in government's hip pocket so to speak. I worry that they would be less the way they want to be, which is as independent as possible of the government.

I am sure the member for Huron-Middlesex, if not the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart), if he has heard it once he has heard a thousand times from his fellow farmers that they would much rather be able to rely on the marketplace than to have to look to government. We have to admire that. That is the kind of mentality I certainly grew up with in eastern Ontario. Farmers did not want government to do it all.

As a President of the United States once said, the government can do everything for someone but it can also take it all away. Farmers are the first to recognize that and want to maintain their independence of Big Brother, whether Big Brother is at Queen's Park, Parliament Hill or wherever.

Both members opposite who have spoken got into the question of farm credit. I acknowledge there are certain programs in place in some provinces aimed at assisting their farmers. It is what I referred to in our recent meeting in Regina as bottom loading. One of the issues we were talking about when we were dealing with the matter of the development of a new national stabilization program was the concern about top loading. The federal government quite rightly had said to us, when it agreed to talk to us at all about this issue, one of the biggest stumbling blocks in developing a new national stabilization program is that some provinces would want to top load.

Members may recall in recent years there were even times when Ontario proposed to make payments under its agricultural stabilization program and there were threats from Ottawa. This was the case in 1981 with respect to sow-weaner payments. There were threats from Ottawa to deduct the Ontario payments from the federal payments under the Agricultural Stabilization Act, 1958.

We recognize that is an issue and in fact that was openly discussed at the table at Regina. But there are many other things provinces do to which I attach the label of bottom loading. There are many we do. We have talked about some of them -- the subsidized debentures for tile drainage; the property tax credits which we have discussed and will discuss again I am sure during these estimates. There is also the assistance that goes out through the Ontario farm adjustment assistance program.

In earlier years, there was a variety of patchwork -- and I do not use that word to be critical -- but ad hoc support programs which we are trying now to rationalize into something that will help those who really need the help. This would not be a scattergun approach. It would be a case of targeting the problem, not a matter of throwing money at it.

It is not always possible to do a complete comparison. I am not saying this to be critical of the Farm Credit Corp. or the report it recently published. It is fine as far as it goes, but it does not give a complete picture of all of the supports each of the provincial governments gives to agriculture. We do have some programs which I hope members would acknowledge are unique to Ontario and that others have not copied. They have developed others according to the makeup of agriculture in their province.

There is also the fact we have in Ontario one of the lowest rates of taxation, both for personal income tax and for corporate income tax in the country. I think this has to be taken account of because that certainly works to the benefit of the agribusiness sector, particularly our small, independent farmer-businessmen.

I do not want to make too much of it, but a number of years ago -- 14 or 15 to be exact -- the federal government did approach the provinces about the matter of long-term credit. I would remind members that in the main right now, particularly since interest rates have recently fallen as dramatically as they have, the main problem would seem to be not so much in the long-term credit area as in the short-term operating credit area. It is to this area that our farm assistance program is directed.

Fourteen or 15 years ago the federal government, through the then Minister of Agriculture Canada, who I think was the Honourable Bud Olson, approached the provinces and said: "We want to establish the Farm Credit Corp. as the prime lender in the government sector, or of last resort. To do that we would like the provinces to get out of the field." At the time, the only involvement we in Ontario had in long-term credit was with respect to junior farmer loans, of which there are about 3,000 still on the books --

Mr. Swart: It is 3,500 if I can read the sign language.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I think it is 3,000 -- I stand corrected -- still on the books, some of which have been turned over. I imagine they would make quite an attractive feature on the real estate listing if somebody is retiring or moving and got a junior farmer loan at fairly low rates.

We got out of the long-term credit field at that time, as did most but not all provinces. In fact, as recently as a decade or so ago the federal government's Farm Credit Corp. was occupying something in the order of about 70 per cent of the long-term credit field. Since that time, their involvement has declined to the point where I think they are now about 25 per cent of the long-term credit field.

I hasten to interject at this point that I am not making the comparison of the decline from 70 per cent to 25 per cent to suggest that they have been withdrawn; I am not saying that entirely. But to some extent I think it can be said that the amount of money available to the Farm Credit Corp. through the consolidated revenue fund of Canada has not kept pace with need.

At least equally significant has been the fact that in the last decade the lending institutions -- I will use that broader term rather than saying the banks, because it is broader than just the banks -- have re-entered the farm credit field in a very big way. I think many of them are finding out now that their lending practices could have been a lot better if they had been demanding of applicants -- unfortunately this may not be confined just to agriculture; I suspect it is true of any number of small business sectors -- but they should have been demanding of applicants the kind of information that we have been demanding for our farm adjustment assistance program.

We say to a farmer: "All right, if you want our assistance, you come in here with your 1981 or your last year's actual results. We want to see what you actually did" -- I know the member for Huron-Middlesex knows this -- but it is amazing how many had never actually sat down and done that. As members know, there is quite a good organization within agriculture called Canfarm, headed by the former president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture Peter Hannam, from Wellington county, which is trying to improve business practices in the agricultural community.

They have to come in with their last year's actual results and show them to us. Then they have to show us their 1982 or their proposed next year's plan. Again, unfortunately, that is something many have never done, apparently. I guess in many cases it was done almost by rote -- "We did it this way before and we will just keep on," -- whatever the changes in the market.

In many cases, that just is not going to be good enough any more. The market has changed dramatically. We are being buffeted from all sides whether due to currency exchange problems or whether due to disputes between the United States of America and the European Economic Community at Brussels -- I worry about our getting caught in the middle of that crossfire if it comes to an agricultural trade war -- or whatever the reasons.

That way just is not good enough any more. We make them come in with these two things. We sit down with them. Based on what actually happened on their farm in the previous year, if what they are proposing to do in the coming year is just going to put them deeper in the hole, we do not approve it. But more than not approving it, we work with them to help them to develop a better plan to help them work their way out of the financial bind they are in.

4 p.m.

I have said before in this place and outside of it that things would have been different if the lending institutions in the last decade had been following those kinds of practices, if they had kept themselves abreast of changes in agriculture; and I do not mean only the agrologists at the head offices of the banks, the credit unions or the trust companies, whatever, but those people in the branches of the credit unions, trust companies and banks scattered around the province who deal with the farm community on a day-to-day basis. If all of them had stayed aware, I think a great many of the lending decisions over the last five or 10 years would not have been made the way they were.

I readily acknowledge we have a role to play there. We are convening a number of seminars over this winter involving leaders of the farm community and bankers. I am not talking about the head office bankers or the trust company people or the credit union leaders, I am talking about people on the front line wherever possible; these are the people we must bring up to date on current agricultural affairs.

Even in the almost 10 months that I have been Minister of Agriculture and Food things have changed, significantly in some respects. It is a very fluid situation which has to be watched very carefully. I have certainly instructed my staff that we are to find ways to improve on the level of knowledge and the access to information by the lending institutions, and to improve on our services and programs to the rural community to promote better on-farm record-keeping, management and planning, and to support such things as the efforts of this organization called Canfarm, Mr. Hannam's group.

An example of that would be the development early in 1983 of some new 4-H clubs. This organization has been with us for over a generation, and it has been extremely worth while. You have only to tour the Royal Agricultural Winter Fair as I did on a number of days and meet a lot of these young men and women from all over the province and see first hand the results of their efforts, the pride they take in their livestock, their counties and their projects. It really gives you a lot of hope for the future when you meet these young people.

We are going to add to the 4-H system clubs devoted to financial management. We realize, as I know members opposite do, that the financial problems our young people are going to have to face in the coming years are going to be at least as complex, if not more so, as those which their parents have had to face, and certainly much more so than those which their grandparents had to face. We want them to be ready.

To add some encouragement to that, starting in 1983, we will sponsor five annual scholarships for senior 4-H members to encourage them to continue their education in farm and business management. We will find other ways, I can assure you, through the new rural organizations services branch of the ministry under Mr. Knox -- I see Dr. Collin, who is his immediate superior, is here -- to promote these ideas -- more exchange between the agribusiness sector and the lenders, more educational and training programs, up-to-date record-keeping, business management and planning practices.

A growing thing in the farm community is the use of computers. We now have computers in all five of our colleges of agricultural technology and at Guelph so that the young people going through there are exposed to them. The most recent examples I saw were at Alfred College of Agriculture and Food Technology when I went clown to open our new francophone college at Alfred, Ontario, about six weeks ago. Our young people are exposed to this aspect. They know how to use the computers and realize their benefits and they are not something mystical. I must admit that even to a relatively young person like me all this computer language and so forth still is a bit of a mystery. But these people will not be scared of it; they will know how to use it, and they will know that they are business people and should use the most up-to-date information possible.

One final point I should make is that the report from the Farm Credit Corp. is very nicely done, the graphs and illustrations are very well done, but it only serves to illustrate how complex a field it is that they have to publish a special report and that it has to be as lengthy as it is with as many illustrations and explanations as it has. The agricultural finance area is not a simple matter.

I mentioned, too, and this comes back to the matter of planning, in answer to a question about two weeks ago from the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart), that I was concerned when he was giving examples of some of the cheap-money policies of other provinces, that while this is all well and good the results are not always necessarily what he might expect.

I do not mean to take shots at any sister province, but I was intrigued to read -- and I hope he has seen it by now -- the article that was in the Windsor Star about a month ago about what has happened in Quebec. On the face of it, it looks great. The government supports long-term lending. If it is four per cent plus, or rather half of the difference between prime and four per cent, if prime is 16, they guarantee their loans at 12. There is also a program, if memory serves me correctly, of $50,000 for five years interest free for beginning farmers -- that sort of thing.

It looks great, and one would say there should not be any problems there. Yet the number of bankruptcies among farmers in that province this year has risen about 200 or 300 per cent over last year, some enormous figure. The reason for this is that there really were no guidelines or controls exercised in the granting of that credit -- that I can see, at least -- and a number of people were encouraged, apparently, to get themselves into situations out of which they cannot extricate themselves now because of changes in the marketplace.

I am thinking particularly of this article in the Windsor Star about a month ago, which zeroed in on the problems of hog producers in that province, many of whom, because of the availability of relatively cheap long-term credit, overextended. They built too many new vented hog barns, too many new manure storage facilities, too many things that were great to have but not always necessary; and they got themselves overextended.

I can assure the member that in the proposals we have worked up for the development of a new program of assistance to beginning farmers in this province we are certainly not contemplating something where we would just throw money at the applicants. We want to be sure the assistance we give will be well targeted and that it will be supportive, that the borrower will have a plan and that he will agree to regular assistance and counselling from staff in my ministry.

I think those members opposite who represent rural constituencies have probably heard countless times over the course of this year from people who have either applied for and received assistance under the farm assistance program or have gone in and sat down with our staff, that they have benefited greatly not just because they have received monetary assistance but because our staff have been able to give them some very critical advice on how to improve their record-keeping, their business management practices and their planning practices, and that will be very important in the long run.

4:10 p.m.

To his credit, the federal minister has recently, about six or seven months ago, taken legislation through the Houses of Parliament to expand the authority of the Farm Credit Corp. to borrow money. Up until now it has been dependent entirely on the consolidated revenue fund of Canada. I have already mentioned those moneys have not kept pace with growth and demand, not that the Farm Credit Corp. should necessarily have always held at 70 per cent of the long-term credit field, not at all, but it seems to me there is probably a bigger role for it to play than the current 25 per cent, particularly when one looks at the distress money it allocated this time last year.

If my memory serves me correctly, the Farm Credit Corp. ended up helping about 125 farmers in the province, about 65 to 70 of whom were old clients. Only about 55 or 60, as I recall, of the farmers approved were new clients. Do the members remember Mr. Whelan's dire straits money of a year ago? The balance who were included under that program were old clients. They were simply refinancing.

We do think there is a need for a great deal more money there. Five months ago, almost to the day, when we sat down at the annual meeting of the ministers of agriculture in Halifax, Ontario and British Columbia presented a paper on farm finance pointing out some of the problems. We asked Mr. Whelan where the prospectus was because, under this new legislation, the Farm Credit Corp. is going to go to the world money markets wherever there seems to be a reasonable deal on long-term money. But one does not go to New York, Zurich, Bahrain or wherever in the world without a prospectus.

I am told that has only recently surfaced, within the last six weeks or so. I believe that to date not five cents has been raised. I stand to be corrected, but it is my understanding no money has been raised under that new legislation. That is very unfortunate.

As the members know, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture has urged them to look at the agri-bond concept and to further it through this new legislation. I am told the federal minister received the representations warmly. One would hope that he would find any way he could, within the bounds the Treasury Board and the Department of Finance in Ottawa will let him, to use that new legislation to increase the amount of long-term credit available through the Farm Credit Corp.

I am reminded that a year ago, dire straits money was not new money in the main. I should add that. It was redirected money from long-term funds of the FCC. It was not even new money. But apparently the prospectus has been filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in the United States for $100 million US.

One statement the member for Huron- Middlesex made which I must take issue with is that he said in effect, and I am paraphrasing here, "Farmers in other provinces are outcompeting Ontario farmers."

The physical volume of agricultural production in this province has increased by 26 per cent based on three-year averages. This compares to a 25 per cent increase for Canada since 1970, so we have actually kept ahead; not by a wide margin, but we have kept ahead of the national figures.

Our output per farm in the province has been increasing slightly faster than for Canada as a whole. Farm numbers in both Canada and in Ontario, between 1971 and now, have decreased by 13 per cent, that is for both the country and the province, while the total output has increased. The number of farms is down because of the process of consolidation.

It is interesting to look at the figures over the last 25 years. The number of farms is down remarkably, from 140,000 in 1956 to 82,000 in 1981. The amount of land under cultivation is up dramatically from 1956, but the actual number of farms has declined. Our farms, therefore, are getting larger and they are getting much more efficient.

In my opening remarks I pointed out the tremendous growth in productivity of Ontario farmers in the last decade and the need for them to be even more productive in the coming two decades, as we face horrifying worldwide problems with respect to food and its availability.

The honourable member touched on the extension of the farm assistance program. I want to remind him of the official response of the president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. He said it is a temporary program. I certainly emphasize that. We want to get to a longer term program which would be embodied in a much improved national tripartite stabilization program.

He said we need the program. We agree with that. We responded fairly quickly a year ago to the task force report. The president of the federation was a member of that task force. I quote him as he referred to the extension, "We asked for it. I am pleased we got it in a reasonably short time."

There are three options under the program. Option (a) is the six-month deferral of interest on outstanding operating debt. Option (b) is the granting of up to five percentage points of rebate on interest on outstanding operating debt.

I may have misled the House a bit last week. I talked about approvals having been made on operating loans in excess of $570 million. I believe the updated figure is now $616 million on which we have approved interest rate rebates.

Option (c) is the guaranteeing of new lines of credit. That is essentially there for the lenders. It is not to protect them; rather, when there is insufficient security to cover all operating loan requirements that is one way we, with the co-operation of the lenders, can keep the farm operation going in the hope we can help it return to a viable state. If we were to follow the honourable member's suggestion of providing interest subsidies on that as well we would be providing a great incentive for lenders to cover their position, to divert normal operating lines of credit to option (c) which would normally come under option (b).

Each option was targeted at a particular problem. Obviously option (b) is the one that has been taken up most. That is where we have interest rate rebates approved in excess of $600 million. That is the point I was trying to make with the member for Grey (Mr. McKessock) last week when he was saying we only spent $13.25 million as if to imply that is all that is going to be spent.

It is true to the point this report was filed, that is what we had sent out in interest rate rebate cheques; but to use the same expression I did that day, we are on the hook for much more than that when we have approved interest rate rebates on over $600 million. It starts to hover around the $30-million mark just for that option alone, plus whatever we end up having to pay out with respect to guarantees under option (a) or option (c). We are by no means finished this year, never mind the extension of the program into 1983.

4:20 p.m.

Finally, I would simply say that a guaranteed line of credit at prime still has to be one of the best deals in town. I do not know too many members of this House, quite frankly, who could get that good a deal without some guarantor standing behind them -- even the member from St. George, and I do not mean the riding of St. George.

The honourable member felt the fact that to date something around four per cent of the farm population has been approved for assistance is an indication of a shortcoming in the program without, with all due respect, indicating what level he would consider in his mind to be evidence of success.

I want to tell him, though, that while in the sheer numbers of farmers it represents around four per cent, the agricultural output value of these farms in 1981 was almost $500 million. In 1981 this four per cent of the farmers represented about 10 per cent of the province's agricultural output. I might impress upon you that the extent of the assistance to the agricultural community to date is rather more extensive than you might have thought. That is not even throwing in the argument about the other programs like the farm tax rebate program and others that benefit the whole of the agricultural community.

This really comes back to the point I wanted to make earlier when I was talking about the arguments which were made about the percentage of the budget that goes to agriculture as opposed to the percentage that goes to health or whatever. If I may, I would like to try to make this argument by comparing my previous ministry to this one.

In my previous ministry, I spent close to 30 per cent of the provincial budget. That money represented the bulk of the lifeline of the health industry. There is a health industry in this province and the bulk of its lifeline or life-giving money comes from government. It is, as they are quick to remind us -- and some bemoan the fact more than others -- very much reliant on and tied to government.

The decisions I made as Minister of Health for over five years, when it came to funding, affected every hospital, every public health unit, every health practitioner, one way or another, in the province.

I can only say that when you get into this argument about the level of government funding, surely you are not suggesting that the Minister of Agriculture and Food would ever come to the point that he or she would have that degree of control over the agribusiness sector that the Minister of Health has over the health centres?

Mr. McGuigan: If we go to tripartite stabilization, you will have control over them.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: No, with respect, much less so than apparently the honourable Minister of Agriculture Canada is considering. In fact, from talking with him a couple of weeks ago over breakfast one morning during the federation convention, I got the impression myself that what he may be thinking of but to date has not been able to get through the federal cabinet, is a program to support the red meat sector only.

Members should not forget that when I talk about tripartite stabilization, I am talking about every agricultural commodity that is not under supply management. So I am talking about something in the order of the 65 to 68 per cent of agricultural output which is not on supply management.

I am talking about a voluntary program, I am not talking about a compulsory program. I am talking about a program that will be equally funded by the producers, the provinces and the federal government.

I am talking about a program that would be nonincentive in nature. We do not want this program to encourage unnecessary production or overproduction because that would be counterproductive. You only have to look at what has happened in Europe. I only spent a day last June in Brussels with the officials of the European Economic Community but I very quickly got a very clear picture of them spending 75 per cent of the budget of the European Economic Community on agricultural supports. They are about ready to blow their brains out because of all the overproduction that has encouraged and they are trying to find some way to put caps on those supports and to remove those incentives. They have horrendous surpluses, particularly in dairy products, but that is another story.

Tripartite stabilization would have much less control. It would be voluntary. No farmer would be forced to join it. It would be nonincentive. He would be an equal partner in it with government.

But what the federal minister is apparently looking at is some kind of an improved stabilization or level of price support for beef and for hogs tied to production controls, a form of supply management. This is what one hears rumoured all the time and I certainly could take it from remarks he made to me as recently as two weeks ago that perhaps that is entirely what he is trying to push. It is something the federal cabinet to date has not been willing to accept. Perhaps that is because they know that at the last annual meeting of the Ontario Cattlemen's Association and the Ontario Pork Producers' Marketing Board, the producers voted against supply management.

Perhaps they know that at the Regina meeting, held almost five weeks ago, the producer organizations, including the Canadian Pork Council, the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and so forth, said, "We do not want supply management forced down our throats, although we are not arguing against it."

And I am not arguing against supply management. It works for milk and cream, with the exception of overbase quotas, which I will come to in a while. It even works for the poultry industry. But it is not a panacea. We do not think it should be rammed down people's throats. They probably know that.

There was another report in the papers in the last day or so that the federal minister wants to meet with the provinces and the producers before Christmas on stabilization. I will tell you, if he called me now and told me there was a meeting tomorrow morning at seven o'clock in Ottawa I would be there. It is that important. We have to get on with it, but I will come back to that a little later on too.

I can assure my friend that I do not want to increase the presence of the government in the daily lives of farmers. Perhaps he was not in the chamber when I said earlier that one of the things that has always impressed me about farmers, and certainly it is something I grew up with as a young boy in rural eastern Ontario, is the independence of farmers who, as many of them have said to us from time to time, would sooner take their support from the marketplace than from government. You have to admire and support that and, in my mind, you have to keep that as the driving force behind any policies.

The member referred to concerns about the provision of adequate operating credit next spring and the tough lines that lenders will take. I am sure that is true of all types of lenders, but that is also why the farm assistance program has been extended. If the member will recall, within about a month or so of my assuming this portfolio he asked me whether I was worried about the amount of land that was not going to be planted this year and whether I was concerned about the rumours of the numbers of people being denied credit.

As he knows, it turned to be a bumper year. There was very little of any land left lying fallow this year that had been in production in 1981. In fact, there were many examples of land brought into production in 1982 which had been fallow before. I can only assure the member that the farm assistance program is intended to continue for one more year as a co-operative venture of the banks and other lending institutions with the ministry and the government and the individuals.

4:30 p.m.

I cannot say that every farmer who produced in 1982 will produce in 1983. I can say that we will do everything we can within that program to help those who can continue to be viable in 1983 to stay in production, but I cannot guarantee every single one of them will still be there.

Every case is different. There are more than 82,000 farmers in this province and no two are the same. One cannot generalize. The makeup of their debts and of their requirements is sort of no two peas in a pod being the same. Every farmer is entirely different from the next one.

That is the great thing about this program compared to many of the ones before. We have had programs in years gone by where, across the board, if one had so many cattle one got so much money from the government whether one needed it or not, whereas this program is targeted. We want to help the individual. We want to guide and counsel the individual to help him or her work his or her way out of the problems he or she is in.

The member knows as well as I do, because he goes around the countryside as much as I do, that farmers recognize the value of this program; not just those who have received money but also those who have received advice, counsel and direction from our staff.

On a relative basis, the United States Department of Agriculture just held its outlook conference in the last 10 days and its predictions for agriculture in the United States for 1983 are probably about the worst they have ever been. The Canadian Agricultural Outlook Conference is under way today and tomorrow in Ottawa and I will be surprised if it does not paint a fairly gloomy picture as well.

That is not to discourage us. That is not to say there is nothing we can do. The farm assistance program is evidence of what we can do. Our proposals for tripartite stabilization are evidence of what we can do. Our efforts to displace imports and to increase exports are all things we can do to improve the lot of farmers today.

I am told it is expected this year that the United States farm income in 1982 will decline by fully $19 billion, which is a 24 per cent decrease from 1981.

Mr. Swart: Exactly the same as in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: No. Actually it is much worse than ours, from the figures I have seen. Part of that may be due to supply management for about one third of our agricultural output in this country. Part of it may be due to a variety of programs, such as the Ontario farm adjustment assistance program, which in the main do not exist in the states of the union. The situation there for the past four years has been a steady decline, much worse than here in Ontario or in Canada.

The member indicated that in his view the government lacks a clearly defined agricultural strategy. In the short time available to me, I have tried to outline the basic elements of that strategy through the document we put out in April called Mandate for the 80s, which describes the reorganization of the ministry and in essence our priorities in the ministry I now head.

I point to the fact that in the reorganization we have created a third assistant deputy ministership with specific responsibility for finance and policy because, in my view, the ministry needs to be better equipped itself to keep on top of changes in agriculture, to be developing policies to reflect those changes and to support the agribusiness sector as part of a free enterprise system.

It is essential that we work together. The member for Welland-Thorold said he thought, the way I am handling it, that I am perhaps starting to sound like a democratic socialist. I can assure him my intentions are anything but to establish a democratic socialist system such as was created in Saskatchewan.

Let me remind my friend that the last time somebody tried to implement a democratic socialist system over farms -- and I mean, of course, Saskatchewan with respect to the previous government's policies on the ownership of farm land -- they got thoroughly trounced in the election, having lost 55, now 56, of the 64 seats. So we are not going along those lines.

But I have always recognized as long as I have been a minister, and it is almost nine years now, that it is essential to work together with the representatives, the leadership, of the industry, and that the government has to be prepared to back individual initiative -- and I have pointed to some of our research projects and to a number of the development projects -- and be willing to provide the incentives as well as the climate for individual and group initiative.

Mr. Riddell: What is a democratic socialist? I thought a socialist was a socialist was a socialist. Where do you get this "democratic socialist" bit?

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Edighoffer): Order.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I am not even going to get into some of the writings of my friend's national leader 20 years ago on the question of democratic socialism and Liberalism.

I am trying to remember the quote from Winston Churchill, who said, "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries." Those words were spoken by Winston Churchill 40 or 50 years ago, and they are no less true today than they were then.

Mr. Riddell: Repeat that story you told to the Ontario Federation of Agriculture about the beginnings of socialism under John Coldwell.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: M. J. Coldwell?

Mr. Riddell: Right; that was a good story, it bears repeating.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I will get around to it. That is why I wanted to be in committee. In committee you can do that sort of thing; you can take your jacket off, roll up your sleeves, sit around the table and have a good discussion.

Mr. Nixon: Just go ahead; don't let the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) intimidate you.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Listen, 25 years ago I sat in that gallery as a young student from Regent Heights Junior Public School in Scarborough and I have always been in awe of this chamber. I would not presume to tell a joke, let alone take off my jacket, in this chamber. It is a little bit more formal.

Mr. Grande: I didn't think you were that old.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Oh, I was four years old; you think 36 is old?

Mr. Grande: Oh, you said 25?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Twenty-five.

Mr. Grande: I thought you said 45.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Oh no, I remember it well. Father Downer was in the chair overseeing the activities -- now Canon Downer, of course, since September 18, 1975. Mr. Allan was the Minister of Highways at the time; and the great man himself, Mr. Frost, was the Prime Minister. Even as a young boy I can remember him standing up, and perhaps it was the father of the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon), Farquhar Oliver or one of them who was after him on a particular point, and he got up, just stretched out his big hands and all of a sudden the House went quiet because the Prime Minister was going to speak. I remember that as a young boy of 10 or 11 years of age.

Mr. Riddell: Boy, if only we could have the same leadership as we had in those days.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: That's what we need: good, solid leadership.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: That is a good point, you know. My friend might not want to be on the record, because the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) might take offence if he heard that.

The member asked what I am going to do if the federal minister says he is not interested. To this point the minister has not said no; in fact, he has repeatedly said he wants to meet with us.

Back in the spring I asked him for a meeting on stabilization, and I was told to wait until the ministers' conference in Halifax in July. So I went to Halifax and presented my proposal for a national tripartite stabilization program. The proposal was formally typed and not too expensively bound. It was written, typed and bound in French as well, I want to point out.

4:40 p.m.

I do not know whether I have shown this to members; if I have not, I will have to do so. What we got in return was a disgrace. In fact, if anything it was an insult to the intelligence of all the people sitting around that table.

Mr. Nixon: Written in longhand?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: No; I will tell my friend exactly how it happened.

On the opening day, Tuesday -- Monday was for the provincial ministers to meet and go over the agenda; on Tuesday we sat with the federal minister -- we started off with this as one of the first couple of items in the morning. The federal Minister of Agriculture said: "I am sorry. I cannot deal with it now. My papers are on a plane bound from Ottawa." I turned and looked out the window and could not see past the window; there was a pea-soup fog. I said, "All right; I guess we have to wait for the fog to lift."

By two o'clock in the afternoon, after lunch, the fog had lifted. It was a beautiful day in Halifax. We said, "All right, where are your papers?" He said, "They are being reproduced." We said, "Well, we will wait a little bit longer."

Later that afternoon we said, "Now can we talk about stabilization?" He said, "All right." He handed out four separate pieces of paper which had been cribbed from old documents, some of them four and five years old. There was a page 2 and a page 3, but they were not from the same original documents; page 2 came from one and page 3 came from another. Quite frankly, it was a disgrace; it was an insult to the intelligence of the people around that table.

We are not trying to embarrass the federal minister. We realize that perhaps he is having some difficulty getting some of his proposals through the federal cabinet. We did not march out of there in protest. I have always indicated to my federal counterpart that I want to work with him, that life is too short to engage in petty, short-term political tricks.

At the end of the discussion, and it was I who pressed him on the point in the closed meetings, he indicated that he was not able to discuss the issue but thought he could do so by the end of August. I said: "All right, if that is the case. Ontario will offer to host the meeting."

He wanted to hold it at Minaki. I am sure he did not realize that Minaki is not open yet.

Mr. Breaugh: You do not want to wait for it to open.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Exactly.

Mr. Nixon: One thing about you ministers, you develop expensive tastes.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I have a used car. What is my friend talking about? He is the one who pointed out I have a used car.

Mr. Nixon: That is just window dressing.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I indicated that we would host the meeting; and, what is more, I said that in our view that meeting either should be completely open to the public and the media, or at the very least should include representatives of the national producer organizations so that they could see and hear firsthand what is actually said by whom in those meetings. He agreed to the latter; he would not agree to include the press.

Mr. Riddell: Why didn't you make a plea for opposition critics?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: My friend is always telling me he is independent and does not want in any way to be beholden to government. He can do his own pleadings; he knows him better than I do anyway. Apparently my friend does not get any further with him than I do.

Following that, we waited. There was no meeting in August. When we pressed the matter, he indicated it would have to be early fall.

Finally, we -- and when I say "we," I do not mean just Ontario; I mean some of the provincial ministers, particularly the minister from Saskatchewan and myself -- we got tired of waiting. We did not want to let the issue die, die of old age or wither or atrophy, whatever word one wants to use; so we decided we would hold our own meeting.

It was held in Regina and was scheduled for the third and fourth. We only had to meet on the third, because we came to a very quick and solid consensus. We invited all the provinces, and only Newfoundland was not represented because their House of Assembly began its sittings that day and the minister and deputy had to be at home.

We invited representatives of the federal government. They sent four or five people. We invited the national producer organizations. There were about five national organizations represented, including the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, the Canadian Pork Council, the National Farmers Union and the Canadian Sheep Breeders Council.

We discussed this question. We tabled another paper, which I believe the member has been sent; if not, I will happily give him a copy in French or English or both.

Actually we probably could have adjourned the meeting after the first half day, but we wanted to make sure that people had time to reflect over lunch, so we came back at it in the afternoon. It was very clear. Everybody said, "Yes; we believe we have to try to do this."

The Canadian Cattlemen's Association has spent a lot of time and a lot of its resources to work up what it thinks is an appropriate plan for beef. The Canadian Pork Council has worked up a very elaborate proposal about what they think is appropriate for pork. They are not the same. In my view, that is not a reason for stopping. Perhaps someone in the federal government will point to it and say, "The beef people want one thing and the pork people want another. We cannot go on that."

We acknowledge that under a tripartite stabilization program there could be a variety of plans. One does not have to do it exactly the same for pork as for beef, or as for cash crops or for food and vegetables or whatever as long as the overriding principles are followed. I do not think everybody there recognized that. There were governments there of different political stripes. There were two socialist governments represented. There were seven Conservative governments represented, some of which are more conservative than others.

Mr. Philip: Were there any Liberals there?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I did not see any Liberals, now that my friend mentions it. In fact, I have not seen a Liberal at an interprovincial conference for a long time. Where are they?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Was there not anyone there who was Liberal?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: No. Thank God for the game and fish laws or there would not be any left in the country.

Mr. Nixon: When the big boss comes on the scene all you do is criticize him, you won't let him wear his green hat.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: At any rate, at the end of the meeting, I and Mr. Benson, the minister from Saskatchewan who co-chaired the meeting, sent a telex to the federal minister informing him of the consensus. His staff were there and they reported it to him as well. We asked for a follow-up meeting. He has indicated recently that he thinks it should be possible to meet before Christmas.

We are not going to let the matter drop, as much as some in the federal government would like to see us do that. By that I do not mean Mr. Whelan, I am not taking a cheap shot; but some in the federal government would like us to just drop the whole matter and forget about it, and we are not going to.

I have been very careful to this point, because I recognize there are some in the federal government who would like the problem, the political problem at least, to go away. I have been very careful not to muse publicly about our other options. Obviously there are other options, but the best for the producer organizations is still to get the three sectors -- two of them government and one in the private sector -- to sit at the same table, agree that we should try to develop a better national stabilization program and set the wheels in motion to do so.

There are tremendous problems to overcome. British Columbia has had a program in place for 10 years, and the producers there are not going to want to take less than they get now. Quebec has a variety of programs. They were the only ones to disagree with any part of the communiqué. We are talking about a tripartite program, do not forget. They said that in their view the producers should not have to pay anything. If the government of Quebec wants to pay the producers' share, I guess that is up to them.

There are tremendous problems to overcome, but I have to believe that they can be overcome, that it is possible to develop such a program and to do so in 1983. For me to start to list here the options I see if the federal government gives us a negative answer -- the member probably has thought of the same options -- would be to encourage them to reject our proposal.

4:50 p.m.

Mr. Riddell: Saskatchewan did not sit back and wait. They just recently announced a long-term credit program -- $350,000 per farmer at eight per cent interest.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: With respect, that is not stabilization, no more than many of our programs are stabilization. In 1984, we are going to put $85 million back into the agricultural economy through farm tax rebates on productive farmland. That is not stabilization. That is what I euphemistically refer to as bottom-loading. That is a very significant contribution, or bottom-loading feature, that would not be part of stabilization.

That would not be ruled out by an agreement not to top-load any more than narrowing the differential in hydro prices a couple of years ago would be an affront to the principles that we have espoused for stabilization. That is a form of assistance -- I will continue to call it bob-and-weave, for want of any better term -- an assistance bob-and-weave that each of the provinces would be free to choose.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, while the minister is discussing this matter, can I pose a question to him on the tripartite income stabilization program?

Were funds discussed at these meetings? What indication did the minister get, or what indication can he give us now, as to the amount of money he is talking about that Ontario is willing to put in as its third share?

I am certainly no authority on what British Columbia is doing, but it is doing much more than Ontario is doing at present vis-à-vis the number of farmers. The new program in Saskatchewan, in a different sense, also is doing more than Ontario has done.

The bottom line of this whole matter is how much money our government is willing to put in. Was that discussed, and what were the minister's comments in that regard?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Money or budgets per se were not discussed in any detail; in fact, we were all very careful at the meeting to avoid a lot of the detailed work because we knew darned well that if we started to get into the merits or the demerits of one plan, say the proposal that has been worked up by the pork council, or another plan such as that worked up by the cattlemen's association, we would have been there for a month of Sundays doing the work we really want a committee to do after the three parties get together.

We have estimated -- and to a large extent this would depend upon the nature of any program eventually agreed to -- that our costs would be of the order of $30 million to $60 million a year under such a program; that is a wide range because there are many different models that have been bandied about.

Considering the amount we have put out through various short-term programs, we think such a proposal in the long run would not cost us any more, or if more, very little more than what we are spending at present on an ad hoc basis, but would introduce a more stable basis on which producers could plan their production and into which they could fit their particular part of the business.

Later on in his comments, the member for Huron-Middlesex was dealing with the question of tile drainage allocations. He indicated -- I think I am paraphrasing him correctly -- they were about 40 per cent less than the demand last year and that it will only go to aid some 700 farmers if they only receive half of their maximum loan limit. I think that is what he said.

I just want to put these facts on the record. The allocation is based on the recommendation to each of the municipalities that they support 60 per cent of the cost of approved projects. If that is where the member was getting his 40 per cent figure, then I suppose he is correct, because we do not subsidize debentures on 100 per cent of the cost of approved projects.

The legislation provides for a maximum of 75 per cent support. This year we recommended 60 per cent, which by the way is pretty well dead on the average from last year. I think the average support given last year on farm tile drainage applications was about 61 per cent, but municipalities were all over the map. A very few were giving 75 per cent support and others were down in the 30 to 40 per cent range, but the majority were in the 50 to 60 per cent range. One could have people in the same county across the township line with support at either end of the spectrum depending upon their local township council and how they chose to apply the program.

In devising the 1982 program, I instructed staff that they were to tell the municipalities we urged them to support projects at 60 per cent. Some still have not done that. Some have provided support less than 60 per cent based on the theory that if one spreads money to more by giving each one less, that somehow is better. That is their decision, but I am going to continue to urge them to carry out their role on farm tile drainage in such a way that farmers across the province are treated the same.

If a municipality chooses to support at levels less than 60 per cent, it must support everybody the same. They cannot pick out one fellow and say: "You are the progressive farmer, or whatever, and we will support you to the 75 per cent; but for you, who we do not know, we will keep yours down to 40 or 50 per cent."

I am not trying to suggest that did go on, but lest anybody think it could go on, we have made it a strict requirement of the program that they cannot differentiate between farmers. If they are going to support drainage work at less than the 60 per cent level, it has to be at the same level of support for the whole of the municipality; they cannot pick and choose between farmers.

The members will recall the extra funds that were allocated in the May budget. That is something else, by the way, that I should have added earlier when I was talking about the level of spending in agriculture this year. There is another $6 million there I forgot to add for tile drainage in 1982-83, and another $5 million-plus for farmstead improvement which also has to be added to the figures I gave earlier. I forgot all about that.

That $6 million alone is estimated to serve a further 600 farmers, whereas the information my friend was given was to the effect that the whole program was going to help only 700. In fact, the actual average loan last year was about $8,400. If that were followed this year, that $6 million would cover 700 farmers. We think that extra $6 million will cover only 600, but if last year's average almost covered it, that $6 million itself would cover 700 farmers.

The full amount of $36 million, in our view, is likely to help in excess of 4,000 farmers in the province, which is quite a bit different from the information the member was given.

Mr. Riddell: I thought you said $6 million would cover 600 farmers. Where do you get the 4,000?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Of the full $36 million being spent on tile drainage this year, there is $30 million in the estimates plus the extra money, which it is estimated will help more than 4,000. As the member knows, a lot depends on weather and variability of contract. There are any number of things, but those are the estimates. It is a long way off the 700 figure the member was given, from where I do not know.

Mr. Riddell: Maybe I was using the $6-million figure too.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: If the member was, he did not say so.

Mr. Riddell: At least I have you thinking.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I intend to respond to every point. We may be here a while.

Mr. Riddell: You are doing all right. You can carry on.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: By the way, did the member get a copy of this?

Mr. Riddell: No, I did not.

Mr. Swart: I cannot see what it is.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: It is the paper I tabled at Regina five weeks ago. Did the member get a copy of it?

Mr. Swart: No.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: We will get another copy for him.

Further on, dealing with the same subject, namely, tile drainage, the member said that when the loan repayments are deducted from the amount allocated for new loans the new money really is not very much. Obviously, because the repayments go into the consolidated revenue fund -- they do not go into the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, they do not go into the minister's office to be kept in the safe, they go into the consolidated revenue fund; I do not have a safe, as a matter of fact -- we as a ministry have to find the total amount allocated in our budget every single year.

5 p.m.

Let me read the actual figures for the last few years: In 1979-80, we lent $30 million through the Treasury and picked up interest rate subsidies of $3.4 million. That is because in 1979-80 we were buying eight per cent debentures from the municipality, so it would be the difference between eight per cent and whatever we were borrowing at for that $30 million. We ended up picking up a $3.4-million subsidy for a total expenditure by the government of $33.4 million. In that year, there were repayments of $10.2 million; the difference is $23.2 million.

Last year we put out $28.5 million in new loans and picked up $6 million of interest subsidy for a total of $34.5 million. We had $14.1 million of repayments for a net difference of $20.4 million.

The picture is not quite the same if we just compare the loans with the repayments. Last year, on a slightly smaller amount of money than in 1979-80, we had to pay almost 70 per cent more in interest subsidies because of the much higher interest rates last year.

The reason the repayments are low but growing each year is that the loan amounts over the last 10 years have increased dramatically. As recently as 1972-73, only 10 fiscal years ago, the total amount of money available for tile drainage was $4.7 million. This year it is $36 million -- $30 million of it in the estimates, $6 million as a one-time shot-in-the-arm this year from the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development. Even if we discount the BILD contribution because it is one-time, that is a significant growth; that is about a sevenfold growth in commitment in 10 years.

Because the amounts of money lent out in the earlier part of this past decade were small, the repayment figures are smaller, but they are growing. From that small start in 1972-73, by the end of this fiscal year, 1982-83, the total outstanding debentures will be $145 million. That is a considerable amount of money which the province has supported through the purchase of these municipal debentures at very favourable interest rates. This year we increased them for the first time in several years to 10 per cent, which in today's market is still a very good deal. I did want to comment on that.

Mr. Swart: What are your returns this year?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I do not have those figures with me. I will get them when we come to that vote if that is all right.

The member for Huron-Middlesex went on to deal with the processed fruit and vegetable industry, where he talked about a significant decline. With respect to the figures I have seen, I think the member may have been using Canadian figures to represent Ontario's figures. Apparently the import figures he quoted for canned peaches and canned tomatoes are Canadian figures. In Ontario, our imports of canned peaches and canned tomatoes in 1978 were $6.2 million and $2 million respectively, not the much larger figures that he quoted a week or so ago.

We have taken a number of initiatives to expand our peach production. In 1981, also under the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program, a new program was announced to encourage the planting of clingstone peaches and Bartlett pear trees. The last figures, as I recall, would indicate that something in the order of 36,000 peach trees and 9,000 pear trees have been planted under that program.

The whole purpose of this is to more than double Ontario's production of peaches for processing. This is occurring. In the last five years, imports of canned tomatoes have declined while our production has increased. I want to give those figures. This is strictly for canned tomatoes, comparing the percentage of our market which has been serviced from domestic production with that from imports:

Prior to 1977, 45 per cent of our requirements were met from domestic production, with 55 per cent coming from imports. By 1977, there was a dramatic change, and 62 per cent came from domestic sources, 38 per cent from imports. In 1978 there was a slight settling back, 60 per cent from domestic and 40 per cent from imports. In 1979, 63 per cent from domestic production, 37 per cent from imports. In 1980, 65 per cent from domestic sources, 35 per cent from imports.

I would remind members of a number of initiatives taken in recent months under --

Mr. McGuigan: Tariff changes.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I would be the first to acknowledge there are other factors, but we cannot do it all ourselves.

Mr. McGuigan: It would be nice if you did make the acknowledgement once in a while.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I do. You were not in the House earlier. I did give the federal minister credit, particularly with respect to the change to the legislation for the Farm Credit Corp. Now that they have the changes through, I wish they would use it to get more money into the FCC.

I would remind members of a number of initiatives taken in recent months under the BILD program. To date, grants of $8.6 million have been approved for the storage assistance program and that money from government will result in a total new capital investment of $26 million, the balance obviously coming from the private sector.

On new packing storage facilities, members may recall the announcements I made in recent months at Leamington with respect to the H. J. Heinz Co. and at Windsor with respect to Primo Foods Ltd. and its plant at Cottam. These initiatives are matched by support from the Vegetable Growers' Marketing Board for a special pricing mechanism for the field crop that will go into those facilities for tomato paste only, not for whole pack.

Those initiatives will lead to further displacement of imported products and a commensurate increase of acreage. If I remember correctly, just to support those two projects alone will require something in the order of 3,200 more acres of tomatoes; 2,000 in the case of Heinz and 1,200 in the case of Primo.

I think at the time we announced a 2,000-acre requirement for Heinz there was a value attached to that of something around $4 million per year, which would be -- depending on the price of tomatoes, which could fluctuate up or down -- $4 million per year more into the pockets of Ontario growers rather than those of Spain, Portugal, Italy or wherever. It is better that it stays here.

A lot of this is going to come about in small projects. It is not going to be some grandiose thing that is going to turn the world around. It is going to come about in little bits and pieces.

5:10 p.m.

I want to mention the asparagus incentive program. It is a small thing, but we are far too heavily dependent on imported asparagus. This program is intended eventually to bring into production an additional 3,000 acres of asparagus in this province. Also, I would remind you of the strawberry program I announced in Simcoe back in April; that is really a tremendous example of what the government and private sectors can do.

We have the machinery people involved; they are developing the new mechanical harvesters. It is estimated that when they have that perfected there is a potential export market for something in the order of 300 of those machines, with a $12-million value on them or something like that.

We have government people involved, through the Simcoe research station, in developing a new type of strawberry which has a higher crown, easier to take off; you do not take as much of the --

Mr. McGuigan: You should visit the strawberry farms and you would know.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Listen, I have visited a lot of farms. I hope you would not take that away from me. I have visited a lot of farms and a lot firms in the agribusiness sector in 1982 and there is only one of me to go around.

Mr. Nixon: What about the peanut harvest?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Yes, I was there too. I did not see you. I was there for the peanut festival --

Mr. Nixon: The House was in session; I am paid to be here.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: No, it was on a Saturday. If you were here you were the only one. I was there. The member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. G. I. Miller) was there. The federal member for Haldimand-Norfolk was there. The Liberal mayor of Simcoe was there. They were all there. It was a good day.

Mr. Nixon: What about the peanut harvest?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I will come to peanuts. I am still on strawberries. We have people working on mechanical harvesters. We have government researchers working on developing the new types of strawberries which are more adaptable to mechanical harvesting. We have another element of the private sector involved developing new processing facilities. We import -- I think I mentioned the figures in my opening remarks 10 days ago -- about $6 million a year or more of strawberries.

Mr. G. I. Miller: We didn't process one Ontario berry in 1975. We are just turning it around now.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Do you think we will still be here in 10 years, Mr. Chairman? Still looking at these estimates?

I just wanted to go back and give you some of the figures under the program for clingstone peaches and Bartlett pears. These are as of November 30 this year. We have paid a total of 114 grants. This program reimburses the grower for the cost of the nursery stock as long as it was purchased from Ontario nurseries. It has to have been purchased from Ontario nurseries in order to qualify for the program.

We have paid out 114 grants which cover 46,826 trees. This is just for the clingstone peaches, and is more than what I reported a few minutes ago. Total grants paid to date are $203,621. All of the peach grants were in southern Ontario: four in Essex, one in Kent, one in Elgin and 108 in Niagara.

For pears we have paid out 45 grants for a total of 14,908 trees. Grants totalled $72,401. These are a little more widely distributed. Elgin got one, Haldimand-Norfolk two, Hamilton-Wentworth one, Niagara 37, Peel one, and Durham got three.

Mr. McGuigan: Is that program still developing?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I think this one is closed off now. I do not think it has been extended, it has been exhausted. I will check to be sure, though.

In the past two decades the number of tender fruit canning plants has declined; that is well known. However, recently expansion has been occurring in the industry. This is a positive sign, and I would point in particular to the Juergen-Philipp plant, in Niagara Falls I believe. It is in Niagara, anyway; I think it is closer to Niagara Falls. That is a $4.5-million fruit processing project which, if memory serves me correctly, received about an $800,000 Board of Industrial Leadership and Development grant as an incentive to establish there.

The BILD food processing program has encouraged the processing of fruits and vegetables in the province, turning around the admitted trend of the last 20 years. To date, $7 million in grants and loans to fruit and vegetable processors have been approved, and this has led to a total investment of $37 million in fruit and vegetable processing, the $30-million difference, of course, coming from the private sector.

I would remind members that the government's commitment under the BILD program to the ministry over the five-year life of the BILD program exceeds $63 million, $58.5 million coming from BILD and another $5 million over the five years coming from the ministry itself. While it is not all going to fruit and vegetable processing or storage, a lot of it is. Some has gone to the expanded farmers' market at the Ontario Food Terminal, some has gone by way of support for some of the projects I mentioned earlier, but a great deal of it has gone to turn around that trend.

When the member got into the question of farm land, he indicated, and I think I acknowledged this earlier, that there are 12,274 fewer farmers than there were in 1971 and one million acres less of farm land. The figure cited showing a one-million-acre reduction in farm land is the figure for unimproved farm land, which in the main is located in areas of the province with little or no pressure of urbanization. The most significant reductions have not been in the areas of urban pressure. This loss mainly represents marginal farm land becoming idle because of present economic conditions, and much of that land will continue to be available -- in fact, most of it -- for production in the future as future market trends change.

The reduction in the number of farms and farmers is not new. I mentioned earlier my astonishment when I looked at some figures comparing 1956 to 1981. In 1956 there were 140,000 farmers in the province; in 1981 there were 82,000. That is a big reduction over a 25-year period. The reduction in the last decade, though, and I do not point to any one factor to indicate why this is so, has been much slower; that trend has slowed down considerably from 25 years ago.

As I have indicated on several occasions publicly, and the member for Welland-Thorold referred to several of my speeches for comment, the most important figure is the amount of improved farm land. The same Statscan figures from which the member was quoting show that this acreage has increased from 7.8 million acres -- I am rounding, of course -- in 1971 to 8.9 million acres in 1981, which is fully a 14 per cent increase in 10 years in improved farm land.

People see the headline, "Farm Land Reduced a Million Acres." They do not read through all the fine print to find out what kind of farm land, where it is and whether it is productive. They do not read further to find out that the improved farm land actually went up a million acres in that period of time, in fact, over a million acres. Rather than a bleak picture, it is really quite a bit different.

5:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Sterling: Does that include land improved by tile drainage?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: My colleague the member for Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling) asks if that includes all the land that has been improved through tile drainage. It does. The $145 million that will be outstanding at the end of this fiscal year for tile drainage debentures represents literally hundreds of thousands of acres of land in this province which, over the last decade, have been improved. That is land which has seen very significant increases in productivity. I am told 50, 60 or 70 per cent is not unusual in some of the more drastic cases.

Not only is that land still in production, but one has to compare its productivity from one decade to the next. The productivity has gone up as well as the figures for improved farm land in that decade.

Both members raised questions about the Foodland Guidelines, perhaps trying to infer they are not working or that perhaps they have a better idea. With respect, I have not heard it from either of them. Perhaps we can get into that later. I do not know that either party has a definitive policy as to how, if they were on this side of the chamber, they would direct land use planning by the municipalities.

In the more than 11 years I have sat here I have been amused to listen to some of the exchanges about local autonomy. When it suits some members, and I am looking more that way at this point, they will attack the government for doing something on the grounds it is an infringement of local autonomy; on others, though, their true colours show through and they propose the central government should have some overriding authority --

Mr. Riddell: Surely the province is responsible for the preservation of agriculture land. I cannot see how you can slough it off.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I am not sloughing it off. The province has a significant role to play, but it is not the only role it has to play. The member knows that as well as I do. He comes from one part of the province and has worked in other areas of the province over the years, in Hastings and so forth. He knows very well, as I do coming from Frontenac county and having grown up in the Metropolitan Toronto area, that there are a great many diverse regions of this province, even within counties. The differences are quite profound from one township to another. I am thinking of my home county. Go to Portland or Pittsburgh township in the south end of our county. Compare that to Hinchinbrooke or around Sharbot Lake. It is quite different. The member would know that; he has travelled that area.

All I am saying is we see it as a shared responsibility. It is virtually impossible to write a set of words that would dictate in any clear, meaningful way, exactly how the town council in Alfred is to plan, if one presumes the councils in Mobra, Rodney, Rainy River, wherever, are going to plan in exactly the same way.

The guidelines are pretty clear. Basically, the guidelines call for the use of common sense. As I read them and as I recall them, because I was not in the ministry for the first four years they were in existence, they stand on the principle that if there is an alternative to the use of prime agricultural land which can remain productive, that alternative should be pursued, but if there is not an alternative and if the growth is there, then let the development proceed.

I have never heard the member for Welland-Thorold be very clear on it, and perhaps he will be later, but if he is saying that places like his own Niagara Peninsula or places around Toronto should never grow beyond their existing boundaries, then I would like to know if that in fact is his position.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, on a point of privilege --

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I am sorry. I have the floor.

The Deputy Chairman: I recognize the member for Welland-Thorold on a point of privilege.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, the minister is saying that he has never known our policy. Perhaps he would like to look back at the private member's bill which I introduced in the Legislature and which I think sets it out very clearly.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: There are private members' bills and then there are party policies. I would like to know your party's policy.

Mr. Swart: That is our party policy.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: We can get into it later on and you can be very explicit for the record.

I have been around here longer than the member has. I can remember that back in the early 1970s this government took a lot of flak for adopting a stance to contain urban sprawl and to protect the greenbelts around these large urban centres, to contain the shape of these urban municipalities.

Mr. Swart: You have never done anything real.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: With respect, you know that is not true. My friend has only to look at the amount of land around Metropolitan Toronto, around the large urban centres in this area, which has been frozen in perpetuity as parkway belt, as greenbelt, whatever you want to call it, to see that in fact we have taken a stand, and not without a lot of flak.

I do not recall ever hearing of you -- because you were president of your party at the time -- running around saying: "We support the government. They should do that. They should enforce these parkway belts." In fact, we heard a lot of opposition from other places over there.

The Deputy Chairman: I recognize the member for Etobicoke.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: The minister should recognize that it was the former member for York Centre -- he was defeated last time -- and myself, who raised the issue of the Langstaff jail farm and the fact that the government was quite prepared to see large amounts of what was agricultural and recreational property disappear under a development, until that member and I raised the issue in 1976-77 and put some pressure on the government to rethink at least that part of the greenbelt.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: That is not what I was saying. What I was saying was that there were some members on that side of the House, not necessarily in your party, who were trying to make much of the fact that there were many people upset that their land was going to be frozen in perpetuity as open space or as farm land. I am not talking, here, about big, bad developers. Here, I am talking about individuals who had assumed that at some point in the next 10 or 20 years that sprawl would continue and their land, too, would go for six or seven figures per acre.

We took a very bold step. As far as I know, it was the first provincial government in the country that took that kind of step. We said: "That will not be. There will be separation. There will be these parkway belts." They have been imposed by legislation. It was a very difficult process.

To be sure I recall, because I was Minister of Energy at the time, that at the same time we were all concerned about what was going to happen to the Langstaff jail farm; there was also the question of where Highway 407 was going to go and where the hydro corridor was going to go. I remember that very well.

It is great for the member for Welland-Thorold to say, "You have done nothing." With respect, you have every right in the world to make up your own mind, but you have no right to make up your own facts.

We have taken a number of steps over the years --

Mr. Swart: You didn't get the reaction you wanted from that, did you?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Well, your colleague got it.

Followed by the guidelines in 1978 --

Mr. Grande: How many years did you teach?

5:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Three.

I said it is a partnership between the municipalities and the province. Even at this level no one ministry has exclusivity. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing has the prime responsibility through the Planning Act and the Municipal Act, but a number get involved, such as the ministries of the Environment, Transportation and Communications, Education from time to time, and ourselves, among many others.

In my brief time in the ministry we have become involved in a number of local planning matters where we have stuck by the guidelines fairly strictly and I have heard from members opposite in both parties. I will mention it here. You may recall that back in the spring there was a reapplication by the town of Halton Hills for a cemetery to be established in the northern part of that municipality for one of the ethno-cultural communities in the greater Metropolitan Toronto area. It so happened they proposed to put a 10-acre cemetery on class one land. My staff looked at it, and they came to me and said, "There is all kinds of classified class six land within a similar radius of the Metro Toronto core that could be used. That land should not be used for a cemetery."

The advice we gave to the council was that in our view the Foodland Guidelines would preclude that development on the grounds there was an alternative. If there had not been, and if there had been a good case for a cemetery in that area, surely you would say that I should have let it go ahead, or would you not? I would be interested to know, given that kind of an example.

If there was not anything but class one land for 40 miles in any direction, would you have said to those people, "No, you cannot have your cemetery there"? We said no, because there was an alternative. There was much less desirable land available in the same region. I have received at least half a dozen letters from that side of the House, from both parties, urging me to reconsider. It is not nice to be against dead people, but in my view that was a case when we had to stand our ground.

Another example was in the riding of the member for Wentworth North (Mr. Cunningham). There was a senior citizens' project in Ancaster that was proposed for class one farm land. We took a look at the situation and on the grounds, first that there is land already designated in Ancaster for development that could be developed, and second that there are any number of sites in the immediate environs of the proposed site which are class four, five or six land, we said they should not develop that land.

As the member for Wentworth North will recall, there was a hue and cry, not saying, "Good for you, Minister of Agriculture and Food. Go on and save that fine class one farm land," but from people saying, "Why are you against senior citizens? What have you got against senior citizens' housing?" Obviously, we are not against them and we are not against housing them, but there is a case where we had to take a stand.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Chairman, on a point of privilege: Why would not the minister then apply those same principles to the very contentious rezoning application referred to as the Allarco development land, where the quality of the land and soil was far better, larger and more viable as farm land? Why would not your officials conduct themselves in the same vein?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I would be glad to deal with that when we come to that vote. I want to deal with one that both the critics raised; that is the infamous hole in the doughnut in Mississauga. In that case --

Mr. Nixon: That is where the Premier (Mr. Davis) wants to build a new stadium.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I don't think so.

In the two examples I have just given the member we dealt with 10 acres and I think maybe five or 10 acres, respectively. This is very large; this is 12,000 acres of land in the middle of greater downtown Mississauga. Frankly, at the time -- and it was only a year or a year and a half ago at the most that it was considered -- our staff looked at it -- in fact, they were subpoenaed by the local citizens' group to give evidence at the hearing -- and they concluded there was no point in preventing eventual development on those lands, because farming in that area is impractical or practically impossible now. There is no infrastructure left.

Mr. Swart: Twelve-thousand acres.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: What are you saying? Are you saying that you would not approve that at all? Are you saying that, notwithstanding the fact there is no agricultural infrastructure there to support farming, you would freeze it in perpetuity? Politically that may be popular with some people, and I can tell the member it makes it more difficult to have to say that you have to treat every single case on its own merits. I was not the minister at the time, but in that particular case, having discussed it with the staff, I can see their point that --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Excuse me. I have the floor.

Mr. Swart: You asked me a couple of questions. I am just getting up to answer.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: No, no. You might want to think about your answers. When we get into the item that deals with this, I will be interested to know how you would deal with these cases.

Mr. Swart: I will be glad to tell you.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I will be all ears at the time. Right now I am something else.

The staff, as I said, at that time reviewed it extensively, and the Ontario Municipal Board concluded, as our staff did, that there was no point in preventing that development, because in the long run, maybe not that long a run, continued farming of the site was impractical. Recognizing the growth in this area, they concluded it was a good place to continue growth of the Metropolitan Toronto area within the bounds of the parkway belts, etc., that I referred to earlier.

I mentioned earlier the involvement of all the ministries. We routinely review the planning and development documents that come in to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing for their conformity to the Foodland Guidelines. Last year alone my staff reviewed 5,362 severance applications. You know how controversial an area that is. There is by no means a consensus on that in the agricultural community; in fact, if anything the policy in the Foodland Guidelines, which is essentially one severance per 100-acre farm for farm or retirement purposes, is one they do not like very much at all.

Mr. Swart: The federations are toughening their stand, and you know it.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Well, you go out and talk to individuals away from organized meetings. I am telling you, that policy is not necessarily very popular.

They dealt with 52 new official plans -- and if you have ever looked at an official plan, you know how much work that entails -- 336 official plan amendments and 320 plans of subdivisions, so obviously our staff are worked very hard.

In the case of the recently submitted Brampton official plan we are in the process of formulating our comments to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. They will obviously be within the context of the Foodland Guidelines, and we will look very hard at what is already approved in Brampton.

We will look very hard at their projections, because there are really about four or five blocks of land. There is one big chunk of 4,000 acres, but there is another 3,000 or 4,000 acres in smaller chunks all around Brampton. Some of it is proposed for estate residential, some is proposed for more typical subdivisions, some is proposed for industrial use and some is proposed for town houses and that sort of thing.

5:40 p.m.

We are looking very hard at the site. It has already been designated for development in that city. What they are projecting as growth in comparison to what the actual growth has been in the past 10 years, and whether in fact it is needed at this time, is under review.

We are not about to say to Brampton, or to any municipality which has its boundaries defined -- and Brampton's have been defined and contained, in large measure, by other planning measures such as the parkway belt -- that a town like that will never he allowed to grow, that it has grown as far as it is ever going to grow.

There may be cases along the way where we will have to say that to an individual municipality, but surely the member is not proposing that we develop that as a statement of policy for every municipality; maybe he is.

I will dig out that old bill and later on the member can elaborate on it and tell me what his policy is, because I can tell him that it is not very clear to me and I can recall being here for that bill. I would like him to deal with a couple of specific examples and tell me, if he were standing here, what his policy would be. That would be very instructive, and perhaps the official opposition would like to do the same.

Mr. Riddell: The Brampton issue will put the minister's guidelines to the test, as well as his commitment to agricultural land in this province.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Oh, yes. As long as the member will acknowledge what I have told him about the growth and improved farm land, the growth and productivity of the land and all we are doing there, I will put the same questions to the member when we get to it as to whether he is proposing there be an absolute, total freeze. I have to say to him, as politically sexy as he may think that is, it will not work, it is not common sense.

Common sense says my first priority is to save all the prime farm land I can. The second tenet is that there will be cases where there is no alternative so I will have to let it go, as long as we are doing everything possible at the same time to improve the productivity of as much of the land as we can.

Mr. Riddell: Always bear in mind the Malthus theory; you are going to need this land some time.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Whose? Oh, indeed. But I ask the member to be specific. Let me take those examples such as the cemetery or the senior citizens' project. If there were no alternative for miles around, would the member still have denied them? I would not have, but because there were alternatives I turned them both down and told my staff to stand their ground in spite of letters from both parties over there.

On the question of aggregates, there are a number of things. My colleague the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) has been a busy boy. He has papers out dealing with wetlands; he has papers out dealing with aggregates; he has papers out dealing with mining and with forest resources. The documents stand about a foot and a half high. I think he and his staff should be given credit for bringing the planning role of the Ministry of Natural Resources into the 20th century and trying to inventory all that we have of natural resources.

I want to remind the members that we are doing an inventory of our own, in the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, of all the productive farm land in the province and all the drainage in the province. It was begun in the summer of 1982. It is a joint project that is being funded on a 50-50 basis with the federal government. We are using money from the Unemployment Insurance Commission under section 38 of the federal government's act, which allows it to enter joint venture projects like that rather than paying full benefits to mainly unemployed people. We have taken people off the unemployment rolls to do this.

We are well aware of what the people in Natural Resources are doing. The minister and I have had several meetings already, specifically to talk about aggregate policy to be sure their policy or guidelines do not constitute an infringement on the Foodland Guidelines, because it does not have and will not have primacy over food land.

In other areas, the member for Huron-Middlesex raised an issue last week that, after the fact, he may well wish he had not.

Mr. Riddell: The Mariposa? Not on your life.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Yes, about the draining in Mariposa township. That case clearly illustrates the need for the two ministries to get together under one procedure, and I think it should be under the Drainage Act to ensure that if there are any concerns that fall under the ambit of another minister, in this case the Minister of Natural Resources, they be dealt with within that process.

They were maybe six years down the road under the Drainage Act when all of a sudden, out of left field, came an objection under a piece of legislation that comes under the Ministry of Natural Resources. That clearly illustrates that we have to change the processes. I suggested we should do it under the Drainage Act and his staff and mine are working together to try to do that.

Mr. Riddell: Since you mentioned it, what is the purpose of the drainage inventory you are taking?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Because there has never been an accurate record kept of where it all is and when it was installed.

Mr. Riddell: How are you going to use it?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Planning for the future through our --

Mr. Riddell: Whether to make more money available for tile drainage or whether you think you have got enough done?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I have already pointed out that in 1972-73 we had $4.7 million for tile drainage. In 1982, only 10 years later, we have $36 million. The commitment has grown substantially. That is without even getting into the figures for the municipal drains and their maintenance.

The Minister of Natural Resources has a responsibility which he is trying to exercise in the best way he can. I have a responsibility with respect to the preservation of farm land which I am going to exercise in the best way I can. It is not a case of one superseding the other. I think the Foodland Guidelines are very clear. Under the terms of the revised Planning Act, we will now have to reissue them as a --

Mr. Swart: There is no requirement under the Planning Act to issue any policy statements. That is why we voted against it and will.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I am told we will be required to issue an updated policy statement. In the process --

Mr. Swart: If you do it voluntarily there is nothing in the Planning Act that says you must.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I am saying that we are beginning the process.

Mr. Swart: I have the Planning Act here.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: My understanding is that we are.

Mr. Swart: Will you show it to me?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Whether we are or not, we are working on an update five years after their introduction.

There are many other areas where ministries have to work together. Energy is an obvious example with the planning of hydro corridors, pipeline corridors, transformer stations and the like. Environment is yet another. When we look at matters like the use of herbicides and pesticides, the Ministry of the Environment is deeply involved. We cannot tell it to butt out, it has a responsibility. We have to work to ensure our policies are compatible. It eventually all comes under the same umbrella of the Planning Act and the Municipal Act.

5:50 p.m.

Later on, the member referred to comments of almost two years ago about the development of lands in eastern and northern Ontario under the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program. It might be instructive to go back to the BILD book that was issued in January 1981. It was pretty clear that in talking about the development of such lands we were talking well past the year 2000. We were not talking about a time frame of two, three or four years.

Notwithstanding that, I think it is worth while talking a bit, in the last 10 minutes before the dinner hour, about some of the things that have already been done or begun and deal very directly with eastern and northern Ontario with regard to drainage, improvement of the productivity of certain lands or the bringing into production of some other lands.

First of all, there is the South Nation River basin study -- something in which I know the member for Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling) is very interested, and I think one or two members opposite may be as well -- that affects more than two million acres, of which 500,000 acres are currently in agricultural production.

That study has been conducted to determine action needed to improve drainage in the area. Funding for it has been set aside in the eastern Ontario subsidiary agreement, which was made with the last federal government, not the present one, and under which I have been urging the federal government to direct more money to eastern Ontario for municipal drains.

Essentially, what that agreement allows us to do -- the member for Stormont-Dundas-Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve) is very much involved in this with a variety of townships -- is to increase the government share of approved municipal drainage projects from one third to two thirds, the other third coming from the federal government.

While the amount of money available has been committed, there are a great many projects that we would agree are worth while and should be carried out. Eventually they will get one-third provincial support, but we think they should have the additional support of the federal government and we hope the feds will see their way clear to increase that allocation.

If I remember correctly, the subsidiary agreement is to run until 1984. It was a five-year agreement signed with the Clark government, and here we are in 1982 and the money for the drains is all committed.

The channelization of the South Nation River affects 260,000 acres of agricultural land. The channel is being increased in size to permit better drainage during the high flow period. I think that, again, is funded through the eastern Ontario subsidiary agreement. Under that agreement, the 178 drains approved will drain 163,000 acres of farm land.

The outlet drains are constructed in response to petitions from local farmers, where they have been approved by their local council and the outlet drains are required to provide outlet for drainage tile installed on those farms. As I mentioned, they are funded one third, one third and one third -- province, federal government and the local people.

Under the Tile Draining Act, which we have discussed at some length today, we have low-interest debentures provided to farmers for tile installations on their farms. This year, since I have become minister, we have given priority to eastern and northern Ontario. Historically, eastern Ontario received, just as an example, about 10 to 15 per cent of the tile drainage budget. As a result of this recent policy change of giving priority to the east and the north, this year I am devoting between 18 per cent and 20 per cent of the budget to eastern Ontario.

Then there is the agricultural resource inventory, which will cover 900,000 acres of agricultural land in eastern Ontario. That will provide us with an up-to-date inventory on the tile drainage that has been installed. It will assist us in planning future land development activities in the east.

In the north, it is worth while noting that land development is being carried on through the northern Ontario rural development agreement. Outlet drains are being built under the Drainage Act as well as on-farm drains under the Tile Drainage Act. A great deal has already been done, and I suspect that over the longer haul we will see the goal that was described two years ago in the BILD document realized.

I was up north a number of times this last summer and fall. I was very impressed with the people I met and the farms I saw. There are some very fine farm operations up there. I may have told members some time ago that this year the Quaker Oats Co. had a major program to increase their purchases of rolling oats from Ontario. I think they originally set their goal at 1.2 million bushels, and they tell me it was so successful they will probably get about two million bushels of their needs from Ontario this year. More than that, I am pleased to hear the best oats they bought in terms of quality and yield were from Timiskaming, which I think is a very encouraging thing to hear when we look at the potential for northern Ontario.

I would like to remind everybody that the northern part of this province is on the same latitude as the great breadbasket of Saskatchewan and the great productive beef and dairy areas of Manitoba and Alberta. When one considers the changes that the federal government is considering making to the Crowsnest Pass rates, that alone will add some stimulus to certain potential developments in northern Ontario.

We are not going to use a scattergun approach. We are going to zero in on individual opportunities in the north. In our planning of the New Liskeard College of Agricultural Technology we have been very careful in the buildings that we have approved to date. I have opened a couple of them this year and approved a couple more to go ahead. They are aimed at serving the needs of northeastern Ontario.

Members may have heard that we are looking at a proposal to take to the BILD committee of cabinet on the development of an elite seed potato facility in northeastern Ontario, and from that to spawn the development of a seed potato industry in northeastern Ontario. We zeroed in on a specific possibility, worked and reworked it to the point where we are convinced in our own minds that it can be viable and could work to the benefit of northeastern Ontario and the province. It has everything going for it. It has the soil in the clay belt. It has a climate that makes it virtually germ-free, as compared to even southern Ontario. That is a specific instance.

The northern Ontario rural development agreement, another five-year agreement with the federal government, is for $4.7 million. Some 700 farmers to date have shared in this program, including $300,000 for land clearing and tile drainage. This is over and above the tile drainage allocation. A further $1 million has gone in there under that.

The veterinary assistance program provides grants to veterinarians in designated areas of the north. We have given assistance on both the purchase and transportation costs for eligible breeding stock. This is also available in the north. We have other programs of a provincial nature under which they qualify for the farm tax reduction program, tile drainage, the farm industry assistance program and many others I have mentioned in my opening statement.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.

6 décembre 1982